|
Just an idea for Kirth in response to Dungeon Grrrl's idea that raw charisma would help make friends.
How about a number of friends/ contacts equal to your charisma bonus. These could be roleplay based if you had a long term campaign setting, or they could offer a specific bonus if you did not. Thus a merchant friend might allow the purchase of goods at 10% discount. A spell caster similar, a rogue or fence might be able to supply poison or other illicit goods, or goods that are over the settlement value, but for inflated price...
As I say, just a thought without any real backing as yet... It would have no penalty for low charisma, just an added bonus for high as it seems most under rate the stat here.
|
*Walks around here and sees the topic is still alive.*
*Becomes instantly friendly with everyone because of high virtual charisma. No check needed, and non-used bonuses get bonuses on their bonuses for FUNNY PICTUREZ.*
*Remembers the -40^2 circumstance malus when trying to influence a fellow interweb user's opinion. Then sighs. But this is not over !*
"Next time, I swear, next time !"
*Flies away heroically in the sunset, giving to every people a sad win. But hey, a WIN !*
|
I used Occam's Razor on the Inn argument. And you are applying charisma as a direct modifier on initial reactions without any roll at all. Heck you are doing it without ANY role play being done. This is bad from BOTH sides. First you are applying an automatic benefit to high charisma scores NOT just a mechanical one (or you would have had at the very least a charisma check vs a flat DC like 10 for example). Secondly you AREN'T doing any role play. Rather than punish someone automatically let them PLAY their role as THEY defined it. You know that thing we all agreed on however many pages ago where people can choose what that bad charisma means and ROLE PLAY it themselves when interacting with npcs.
To use a previous example character placed in this Inn example: Mr Model in a suit of armor (who no one takes seriously because of his bad charisma) let us make him a dwarf, enters the bar with a wounded character and tries to ask for help. Wouldn't it be far better to role play it out rather than automatically assign a negative reaction. All other things being equal the barkeep using role play would likely ignore or brush away the dwarf adonis and rush to the aid of the wounded man herself. Why because she isn't taking him seriously and she has a preset dislike of dwarves. She is however good and would want to see the wounded man received aid. Depending on how the dwarf adonis acted out his role in the interaction with the barmaid then it could go anywhere from her tossing just the pretty boy dwarf out to letting him stay as long as he didn't bother anyone and paid in advance for his drinks.
But by all means LET people role play. It is kind of the whole point of the game isn't it? Let him tick off or placate the barmaid by playing out the very same bad traits he assigned himself. This is what will make this scene a memorable one in the players minds.
I don't understand what you are saying. Not trying to be difficult, I just don't follow your argument.
In the scenario, the players don't know why the barkeep doesn't like them and they have many options to resolve the issue, which include diplomacy, playing for drinks, bribery...all role playing options.
Over time the barkeep may grow to like them if they do heroic things.
Your scenario is completely different. There is a sick person, rather than just two dwarves wanting to buy a beer. Of course the Barkeep would react differently to an entirely different scenario. Whatever feelings he has for deadbeat non-paying dwarves would be 2nd to whatever feeling he has about sick people in his bar.
Which could also go a bunch of different ways.
The point was to show that the GM knows all the circumstances that lead to initial impression and is the only one who can decide what is or isn't relevant at the time, while also showing the aspects included in charisma would be relevant.
I don't understand what you are saying. Not trying to be difficult, I just don't follow your argument.
Sorry, did I ramble on incoherently?... Well let me try to clean it up.
In the Inn example the game master assigned a direct reduction on attitude to the npc based on charisma... just charisma (all other things being equal). The only interaction up to that point in the example was the dwarf asking for help... that's not role play yet. That's not really even enough for a charisma check. If the game master wanted to do things in a way that focused on role playing then he wouldn't have added any charisma alteration until the dwarf and the barmaid had enough time (probably while dealing with the wounded man) to interact. If the character has a low charisma then he will be acting out his penalty during the role play. There is no need to penalize any further than that.
If they were a greedy innkeeper, they would be more likely to be friendly to the one who looked like they have money. If they are looking for help, friendly toward the toughest...
Yes, and the reason why they would be more friendly is because when it comes to rolling diplomacy the charisma would apply a bonus, not a penalty. Not because they simply 'have' the charisma score.
If you have a situation as GM where players have completed identical tests:
a) Player to whom NPC is unfriendly is awarded 500GP
b) Player to whom NPC is indifferent is awarded 1000GP
c) Player to whom NPC is friendly is awarded 5000GP
If the NPC starts at unfriendly, would you move that to friendly prior to diplomacy rolls because Player 1 has a +3 on their CHA? So one player could walk out with 5000GP for the same task as the guy who gets 500GP? If the answer is negative, why?
I think that the "initial" reaction that's spoken of would simply be that the innkeeper would initially SPEAK TO the guy with high CHA, but his general attitude wouldn't change. This also aligns with much of what is spoken of by people on this forum who speak of 'the party face'.
|
|
If they were a greedy innkeeper, they would be more likely to be friendly to the one who looked like they have money. If they are looking for help, friendly toward the toughest...Yes, and the reason why they would be more friendly is because when it comes to rolling diplomacy the charisma would apply a bonus, not a penalty. Not because they simply 'have' the charisma score.
If you have a situation as GM where players have completed identical tests:
a) Player to whom NPC is unfriendly is awarded 500GP
b) Player to whom NPC is indifferent is awarded 1000GP
c) Player to whom NPC is friendly is awarded 5000GPIf the NPC starts at unfriendly, would you move that to friendly prior to diplomacy rolls because Player 1 has a +3 on their CHA? So one player could walk out with 5000GP for the same task as the guy who gets 500GP? If the answer is negative, why?
I think that the "initial" reaction that's spoken of would simply be that the innkeeper would initially SPEAK TO the guy with high CHA, but his general attitude wouldn't change. This also aligns with much of what is spoken of by people on this forum who speak of 'the party face'.
** spoiler omitted **
Diplomacy has no effect on initial attitude.
I understand TOZ's concern that it is a "double" penalty, I just don't share the concern.
To me that is like saying a Wizard has a triple penalty on attacking with a sword because they have a low strength and low BAB, and no martial weapon proficiency.
Diplomacy isn't all social interactions, it is a specific set of social interactions. Most social interactions don't involve any rolls. Like I said, you don't roll diplomacy to buy a beer, but buying a beer from the innkeeper will have an in-game effect on if the innkeeper likes you or not.
Should a characters appearance, personality, personal magnetism and ability to lead have no impact on social interactions unless dice are being rolled?
Again, we have no chart for how racism (orcs, tieflings, etc...) effects interactions, but it does.
We have no chart for how bribery effects social interactions, but it does.
But we want to ignore the effects of appearance, personality, personal magnetism and ability to lead?
I think Neverwinder nights got it right. Low Charisma is an opportunity cost, high charisma is an opportunity advantage.
|
|
I don't understand what you are saying. Not trying to be difficult, I just don't follow your argument.Sorry, did I ramble on incoherently?... Well let me try to clean it up.
In the Inn example the game master assigned a direct reduction on attitude to the npc based on charisma... just charisma (all other things being equal). The only interaction up to that point in the example was the dwarf asking for help... that's not role play yet. That's not really even enough for a charisma check. If the game master wanted to do things in a way that focused on role playing then he wouldn't have added any charisma alteration until the dwarf and the barmaid had enough time (probably while dealing with the wounded man) to interact. If the character has a low charisma then he will be acting out his penalty during the role play. There is no need to penalize any further than that.
Ok, now I follow. I thought you were referring to my example.
Charisma is visible even prior to interaction. You can see appearance, and you can sense personal magnetism.
The all things being equal and the only question being if I like this dwarf who seems charming or if I like this dwarf who is off-putting.
When you add in a situation that needs to be resolved, (sick person) it changes the dynamic. It regardless of how I feel about X (dwarf), I have to deal with Y (sick person).
The other side has argued vehemently that the GM should not require the player to rollplay their charisma.
You and I seem to agree that a players charisma should manifest when interacting with NPCs. I don't expect my players to actually roleplay being uncharismatic or charismatic (some do, but it is a choice) but we all understand they will be perceived with low or high charisma by any NPC they encounter.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just started playing an alchemist in a PbP game here and I'm honestly starting to feel guilty about precise bombs. We've only been in one combat so far (not even done with it yet to be honest), but I'm wondering if the ability to ignore six squares (Ridley has a 22 int) with the bombs is too much. Granted, limited number of bombs, the off chance she misses, yadda yadda...I'm still hopping to look at it from the other side of the coin (have a campaign currently on hold where one of my players is running a 1st level alchemist) before I form my opinion...just posting initial observations.Considering that someone with 22 Int is probably one of the smartest humans on the planet, I don't really have a problem with him being able to create an accurate "shaped charge" magical explosive that excludes exactly who he wants it to.
(The general rule for d20 is that a +5 improvement to an ability score is roughly double the ability of the unmodified score. Thus, a person with 15 Str can lift 2x as much as a person with 10 Str, and a person with 20 Str can lift 2x as much as a person with 15 Str. So Int 15 puts you in the 90th percentile--you're smarter than 90% of the other people. Int 20 is even higher [I'm too lazy to look up the exact statistical value, so I'll just say 99%], and Int 22 is even higher than that. If Einstein were presented in d20 terms, rolled an 18, had +2 Int for his human racial bonus, and by level 20 had spent all 5 ability score bumps from leveling on Int, he'd be Int 25. Your character is Int 22 at low level....)
An interesting piece about the effect of the stats of a character.
Considering that someone with 22 Int is probably one of the smartest humans on the planet, I don't really have a problem with him being able to create an accurate "shaped charge" magical explosive that excludes exactly who he wants it to.
(The general rule for d20 is that a +5 improvement to an ability score is roughly double the ability of the unmodified score. Thus, a person with 15 Str can lift 2x as much as a person with 10 Str, and a person with 20 Str can lift 2x as much as a person with 15 Str. So Int 15 puts you in the 90th percentile--you're smarter than 90% of the other people. Int 20 is even higher [I'm too lazy to look up the exact statistical value, so I'll just say 99%], and Int 22 is even higher than that. If Einstein were presented in d20 terms, rolled an 18, had +2 Int for his human racial bonus, and by level 20 had spent all 5 ability score bumps from leveling on Int, he'd be Int 25. Your character is Int 22 at low level....)
What, you mean intelligence doesn't just cover skill points and skill checks? You're probably wrong, SKR. Einstein only had knowledge:physics, so he might have been INT 5.[/sarcasm]
Considering that someone with 22 Int is probably one of the smartest humans on the planet, I don't really have a problem with him being able to create an accurate "shaped charge" magical explosive that excludes exactly who he wants it to.
(The general rule for d20 is that a +5 improvement to an ability score is roughly double the ability of the unmodified score. Thus, a person with 15 Str can lift 2x as much as a person with 10 Str, and a person with 20 Str can lift 2x as much as a person with 15 Str. So Int 15 puts you in the 90th percentile--you're smarter than 90% of the other people. Int 20 is even higher [I'm too lazy to look up the exact statistical value, so I'll just say 99%], and Int 22 is even higher than that. If Einstein were presented in d20 terms, rolled an 18, had +2 Int for his human racial bonus, and by level 20 had spent all 5 ability score bumps from leveling on Int, he'd be Int 25. Your character is Int 22 at low level....)
So, with this rationale, of 5 points, would that imply that a 5 Int is half as intelligent as a 10? Or that a 5 Charisma, is half as charismatic as a 10?
Sounds about right to me.
And can he pretend to be awesome at combat compared to those he is sitting at the table with? They aren't a group of commoners. That's kind of the point.
Only as awesome as a 10th level Fighter sitting next to a bunch of 20th level Fighters. He is awesome in combat. It isn't as awesome as they are. Maybe one day. At 40th level, the wizard will be just as awesome in combat as the 20th level Fighter (heck, maybe more awesome).
The point is relativity. Next to a greek god, the strength of an world-class athlete is probably akin to the strength of a cockroach vs world-class athlete. However, no one is going to say that the world-class athlete is not good at what he does, because in the grand scheme of things, he's pretty awesome.
A 20th level Barbarian with a 5 Charisma, Leadership, and maxed Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate would have a +17 Diplomacy, +17 Bluff, +20 Intimidate, a 12th level heroic guy just following him around, and some 35 additional followers that includes a 4th level character. To say this guy is not good with people, a great leader, a cunning liar, and a fearsome warrior is asinine. Is he the best he could be in that area?
No, but the again Wizards that have a 5 Strength aren't that great in swordplay, but a 20th level wizard can slap-down orcs Gandalf-style even with a -3 strength modifier (especially if he bothers to cast a buff or two), with his +8/+3 attack routine (counting -3 str, +1 masterwork sword). He could probably take on an army of CR 1/3 orcs in melee without sweatin' it (his Hp, AC, and so forth is probably high enough they can't critically him).
Should the wizard melee vs anything near his usual CR? Heck no. Can he melee versus most humanoids and/or common low CR creatures? Heck yes. If he bothers to use magic, he can probably do it even better than someone of that CR, even with his natural deficiencies (heroism or stoneskin and greater magic weapon would make him laugh at most enemies).
There's a difference between "good" and "the best".
First off, I wouldn't have called the Diplomacy chart ranks.You didn't, my apologies.
...(response to leadership example)And you've cunningly ignored the entire point of the example - CHR is, by the rules, available in at least one way for people to "see." Otherwise, those followers are all "metagaming" when they choose to follow the 12-CHR character instead of the 7-CHR character of equal level. Please discuss.
You say "see" but Charisma is a mental stat. "Appearance" has more to do with controlling how others perceive you than it is how you look. Hence, you can't see Charisma, but I believe that you could probably experience or feel it. By definition, a guy who can keep up appearances is a guy who could - for example - appear unfazed in the face of adversity, even if he's actually quite terrified. That might in turn make him a strong leader because he can improve the moral of those following him, or seem stronger when he isn't.
However, notice that Charisma alone has no effect on attracting and maintaining friends and/or followers. You have to have Leadership, the feat, to do that, and as it turns out, Charisma modifies that new score just as it modifies other effects used to influence or deal with others (so you still get a -X/+X modifier). This alone shows Charisma is not the primary factor. Heck, even if your Charisma was drained to 0, you'd still have a couple of very loyal guys hoping for you to come out of your Coma.
If you wanted to request assistance without the leadership feat, that would fall squarely under Diplomacy (see making requests), within the limits set by the GM (as per Diplomacy) which prevents stuff like asking the local barmaid to come slay dragons with you. It would be a very difficult check to make (because it probably falls under several of those +10 to +15 DC modifiers for danger and risk and all that) but you could try to. If your Charisma was high, you'd have a better chance, but that's not the most important factor.
Diplomacy quite literally allows you to make friends, make requests, talk people into or out of something, and gather information while palling around in a tavern.Please show me in the rules where that first example is true.
It's working great from where I'm sitting, and I don't have make up stuff not in the rules about Charisma for it. Moreso, I don't have to try to pass off my made-up stuff about Charisma off as rules, or misrepresent the English language, or repeatedly refuse to cite the rules I'm trying to pass off as real. I'm I'm totally cool with that.No, but (to borrow your tone) you have to repeatedly pretend that "GM discretion" should always allow long-term friendships, when there's nothing in the text that indicates it. You have to arbitrarily rule a definition from the book "fluff" and say that it's fine to ignore it (and replace it with a dictionary definition), when there's no text in the book that shows anything to that extent.
The skill itself says it's subject to GM discretion and is quite clear. It depends on the circumstances as decided by the GM. It could be as long as forever, if the circumstances were right, but it defaults to 1d4 hours if there's nothing that would suggest otherwise. The social skills are all somewhat governed by GM discretion, due to the nature of the skills. Even Bluff has a "subject to GM discretion" clause that pops up at least once during the skill (the GM might rule that you can't convince a guy that the sun is made out of blue chocolate and rubies, for example).
The actual rules are that it is subject to GM discretion. The mechanical aspect is it is subject to GM discretion. It is not a description, it is the mechanics. Understanding the english language is not a detriment to properly understanding the description (or even the mechanical) meanings in the books, but is an asset. Purposefully ignoring the definitions of words that aren't clearly defined as having a specific in-game definition is asinine and obtuse.
(The general rule for d20 is that a +5 improvement to an ability score is roughly double the ability of the unmodified score. Thus, a person with 15 Str can lift 2x as much as a person with 10 Str, and a person with 20 Str can lift 2x as much as a person with 15 Str. So Int 15 puts you in the 90th percentile--you're smarter than 90% of the other people. Int 20 is even higher [I'm too lazy to look up the exact statistical value, so I'll just say 99%], and Int 22 is even higher than that. If Einstein were presented in d20 terms, rolled an 18, had +2 Int for his human racial bonus, and by level 20 had spent all 5 ability score bumps from leveling on Int, he'd be Int 25. Your character is Int 22 at low level....)
I mean no disrespect to Sean K. Reynolds. I like his blog, and he seems like an awesome and nice person. I have found issue with his mechanics-fu in the past, and do so here again. He didn't design the game to my knowledge. I'm pretty certain that it was Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams that wrote the core rules.
Likewise, this is more or less saying that you are "double" the Intelligence of a character with a 10 Int if you have a 15 Intelligence, even though you only have a 10% difference in ability. That seems pretty stupid just from a face-value standpoint. That means someone that is literally TWICE AS STRONG as the average guy only has a 10% better chance of beating that guy in a test of strength. He's only 10% more likely to push open a stuck door than a guy HALF HIS STRENGTH.
It doesn't take someone with Int 22 to see the failure of logic here.
I mean no disrespect to Sean K. Reynolds. I like his blog, and he seems like an awesome and nice person. I have found issue with his mechanics-fu in the past, and do so here again. He didn't design the game to my knowledge. I'm pretty certain that it was Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams that wrote the core rules.
SKR is one of the game designers. He had worked with TSR, then WotC, and now Paizo as a game designer. He was one of the designers for 3rd Edition and now Pathfinder. His extensive knowledge and understanding of the rules sets him apart from many of us in this discussion.
I'm not trying to put him on a pedestal. I don't always agree with him. When it comes to basic assumptions of the game's mechanics, I think he has a bit more credibility than you or I.
|
|
I mean no disrespect to Sean K. Reynolds. I like his blog, and he seems like an awesome and nice person. I have found issue with his mechanics-fu in the past, and do so here again. He didn't design the game to my knowledge. I'm pretty certain that it was Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams that wrote the core rules.SKR is one of the game designers. He had worked with TSR, then WotC, and now Paizo as a game designer. He was one of the designers for 3rd Edition and now Pathfinder. His extensive knowledge and understanding of the rules sets him apart from many of us in this discussion.
I'm not trying to put him on a pedestal. I don't always agree with him. When it comes to basic assumptions of the game's mechanics, I think he has a bit more credibility than you or I.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3WcuvL737A
Likewise, this is more or less saying that you are "double" the Intelligence of a character with a 10 Int if you have a 15 Intelligence, even though you only have a 10% difference in ability. That seems pretty stupid just from a face-value standpoint. That means someone that is literally TWICE AS STRONG as the average guy only has a 10% better chance of beating that guy in a test of strength. He's only 10% more likely to push open a stuck door than a guy HALF HIS STRENGTH.
It doesn't take someone with Int 22 to see the failure of logic here.
Yet this is exactly how the rules work for carrying capacity (which was one of the things he mentioned).
A 10% increase in your odds of accomplishing something can still be a 100% increase in ability. There is no direct correlation here. You are comparing two different things.
Intelligence of 10, 1 rank in Knowledge, assuming Take 10, can ID any creature with CR 1 or lower. Intelligence of 15, assuming Take 10, can ID any creature with CR 3 or lower. Two CR 1 creatures is the same as 1 CR 3 creature. Intelligence of 20, you can ID any creature with CR 6 or lower. You may notice that you clearly know more and more. It's not hard to see how that could be considered "double." Increasing your Intelligence by 5 points gets you 2-3 more skill points as well. This gives you considerably more skills. A level 1 commoner with Intelligence 10 knows 2 skills. A level 1 commoner with Intelligence 15 knows 4 skills (that's double). A level 1 commoner with Intelligence 20 knows 7 skills (that's almost double).
Wisdom 10 let's you hear a creature walking right behind you 55% of the time. If your Wisdom was 15, you could hear that creature 65% of the time. That's actually an increase of 16%, not 10%. It's still not double but here's something to ponder. You can also hear that person 20 feet away with the same odds as the 10 Wisdom guy can hear someone right behind them. Could that be considered twice as good? What if you went from 15 to 20 Wisdom? It's only a 19% increase but you can now hear someone 30 feet further away. That's a 50% increase. With all the different variables, could you consider this "twice as wise?"
Charisma 10 lets you earn 5.5 copper a day. Charisma 20 lets you earn 5.5 silver a day. That's 10 times as much. Are you 4 times as good as the guy with the 10 Charisma?
What about changing a starting attitude? Charisma 10 has a 0% chance of changing the starting attitude of a Hostile NPC with Charisma 10. 5% for Unfriendly, 30% for Indifferent, and 55% for Friendly. Increasing the PC's Charisma to 15 changes those numbers to still no chance, 15%, 40%, and 65% respectively. Is he twice as Charismatic (no change, 200%, 25%, and 18%). What if he has a 20 Charisma? His odds are now: 5%, 30%, 55%, and 80%. Those are increases of: have a chance, 100%, 27%, and 19%. How much better is he now? How much more can he ask for?
To say that it is exactly a doubling in ability would be false and not what SKR was saying. To say that it is roughly a doubling in ability, taking everything into account, is probably what he is meaning.
I mean no disrespect to Sean K. Reynolds. I like his blog, and he seems like an awesome and nice person. I have found issue with his mechanics-fu in the past, and do so here again. He didn't design the game to my knowledge. I'm pretty certain that it was Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams that wrote the core rules.SKR is one of the game designers. He had worked with TSR, then WotC, and now Paizo as a game designer. He was one of the designers for 3rd Edition and now Pathfinder. His extensive knowledge and understanding of the rules sets him apart from many of us in this discussion.
I'm not trying to put him on a pedestal. I don't always agree with him. When it comes to basic assumptions of the game's mechanics, I think he has a bit more credibility than you or I.
I have no problem with Sean K. Reynolds. Like I said, I like him. However, he didn't create the game, to my knowledge. He also has said things that from a design standpoint make me cringe, and has presented rules (whether his own or not) that make people cringe for their poor mechanical usability (the Vow of Poverty thread for example). I myself was more than worried when he noted that it wasn't fair/fun that his Cleric couldn't melee like Barbarians and Fighters in one of the gunslinger discussion threads (to which I responded something akin to "Would we be right to suspect that Ultimate Combat will have Fighter feats that raise the dead, call hordes of celestial superbeings, etc?", which seemed to agitate him a bit (which wasn't my intention).
My point is, Sean K. Reynolds, like us all, is human. My father is officially a mechanic, but he also has a strong level of experience in many different fields, including accounting, preforming as an electrician, carpentry, and is a strong enough architect that we can build and modify houses without hiring on "professional" help.
Sean K. Reynolds was TSR's online coordinator, and then went through several computer-based positions, made friends in the various areas of WotC, and then eventually transferred to game design (according to his blog). He's quite multi-talented.
The point is, we're all human. Using someone's position as an excuse for demonstratively illogical statements does not make those statements any more sensible.
I mean no disrespect to Sean K. Reynolds. I like his blog, and he seems like an awesome and nice person. I have found issue with his mechanics-fu in the past, and do so here again. He didn't design the game to my knowledge. I'm pretty certain that it was Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams that wrote the core rules.SKR is one of the game designers. He had worked with TSR, then WotC, and now Paizo as a game designer. He was one of the designers for 3rd Edition and now Pathfinder. His extensive knowledge and understanding of the rules sets him apart from many of us in this discussion.
I'm not trying to put him on a pedestal. I don't always agree with him. When it comes to basic assumptions of the game's mechanics, I think he has a bit more credibility than you or I.
I have no problem with Sean K. Reynolds. Like I said, I like him. However, he didn't create the game, to my knowledge. He also has said things that from a design standpoint make me cringe, and has presented rules (whether his own or not) that make people cringe for their poor mechanical usability (the Vow of Poverty thread for example). I myself was more than worried when he noted that it wasn't fair/fun that his Cleric couldn't melee like Barbarians and Fighters in one of the gunslinger discussion threads (to which I responded something akin to "Would we be right to suspect that Ultimate Combat will have Fighter feats that raise the dead, call hordes of celestial superbeings, etc?", which seemed to agitate him a bit (which wasn't my intention).
My point is, Sean K. Reynolds, like us all, is human. My father is officially a mechanic, but he also has a strong level of experience in many different fields, including accounting, preforming as an electrician, carpentry, and is a strong enough architect that we can build and modify houses without hiring on "professional" help.
Sean K. Reynolds was TSR's online coordinator, and then went through several computer-based...
You are confusing "author" with designer.
Here is a list of books he's written, developed, or designed: http://www.seankreynolds.com/store/index.html
Here is his rant on the 3.5 credits (read the very first line): http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/opinions/opinions3p5credits.html
Yes, he is human. Hand waving his credentials away because you disagree with him would be a mistake in judgement. He is most definitely an expert in this exact field.
|
|
You are confusing "author" with designer.
Gary Gygax's ghost could appear and explain it, and Ashiel would say he was only an expert on early editions.
The rule literally says it governs all interactions that influence others, and it wasn't a rules citation.
After saying we should all read the dictionary, pointing out the definition of "diplomacy" was waved as irrelevant.
Ashiel wants to be able to dump charisma without having to deal with not being charismatic. Everyone else here is trying to come to consensus and most of us have.
Don't beat your head against the wall.
The rule literally says it governs all interactions that influence others, and it wasn't a rules citation.
Except it's the description that says that; it's not a "rule" by mechanical standards.
For example, under the Fighter entry "the rule literally says" this:Fighters excel at combat — defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
Does that mean we hand-wave away combat, because the rule says they defeat their enemies?
Obviously not; the description is then followed by actual game mechanics by which the fighter can do these things; it's not just left to "role playing" -- there are actual numbers involved, and detailed rules spelling out the interactions between the numbers and the dice. Sadly, the description of Charisma is not followed by these sorts of mechanics; they're glaringly absent except in the case of some specific skills, which we all seem to agree should not be ALL that Charisma is good for.I understand very well that you prefer that there be no rules for Charisma. That's okay for your game, but it's not OK for ALL games, and citing a description as if it were a rule is the wrong way to convince everyone to play as you do.
|
|
The rule literally says it governs all interactions that influence others, and it wasn't a rules citation.Except it's the description that says that; it's not a "rule" by mechanical standards.
For example, under the Fighter entry "the rule literally says" this:
Fighters excel at combat — defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.Does that mean we hand-wave away combat, because the rule says they defeat their enemies?
Obviously not; the description is then followed by actual game mechanics by which the fighter can do these things; it's not just left to "role playing" -- there are actual numbers involved, and detailed rules spelling out the interactions between the numbers and the dice. Sadly, the description of Charisma is not followed by these sorts of mechanics; they're glaringly absent except in the case of some specific skills, which we all seem to agree should not be ALL that Charisma is good for.I understand very well that you prefer that there be no rules for Charisma. That's okay for your game, but it's not OK for ALL games, and citing a description as if it were a rule is the wrong way to convince everyone to play as you do.
No actually, it isn't.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores#TOC-Charisma-C ha-
Compare it to the other ability scores. It's in the crunch, not the fluff.
"You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:
- Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
- Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
- Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes."
So if you want to "roll" social interactions, you can. They would be charisma checks.
"You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:
1. Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
2. Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
3. Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes."
1. As described under the Skills rules, and for the individual skills. The actual rules for those things are not in the summary you cited; they're later on in the book.
2. As in the skill checks given, and in the descriptions for spells such as charm person, for example (which specifically cites a Charisma check and tells you what it does). Again, those rules are described elsewhere.
Searching the rules turns up one (1) other example: that of the Leadership feat, which ALSO has specific mechanics described under the Feats section.
3. Again, the specific mechanical rules for channeling energy follow in the section for Clerics; they're not in the summary.
That doesn't mean Charisma shouldn't be used for those other things -- for the most part I think it should -- but there are no specific rules given except as noted above. What you keep citing are descriptions and summaries, not rules.
|
|
2. As in the skill checks given, and in the descriptions for spells such as charm person, for example (which specifically cites a Charisma check and tells you what it does). Again, those rules are described elsewhere.
Searching the rules turns up no examples of the other uses you've given it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be used for those other things -- for the most part I think it should -- but there are no specific rules given except as noted above.
1. If it were about the skills checks given, they wouldn't have listed the skill checks directly above them. So it isn't about skill checks.
2. If it were only for spells, the word "spell" would be included.
It says that you use charisma for checks that represent attempts to influence others.
I know you want a more robust social interaction system, and we differ on this point and that is fine. I think if you go back and look at older editions you will see it was tried and it failed so it was removed.
Maybe someone smarter than me will be able to come up with a social interaction system that doesn't derail the game by forcing DMs to have NPCs act irrationally based on rolls, killing the verisimilitude of the game.
But until that point, the rules say if you want to make a check to influence someone, you use charisma.
If it were only for spells, the word "spell" would be included.
See edit; the Leadership feat has specific rules, too.
But "roll a Charisma check and modify it by any amount you want to to account for whatever you want, and then make the results be whatever you want" is not in any sense a rule. It's pointless. Why roll at all, if all the modifiers and outcomes are being spun out of whole cloth anyway? Just tell the players what happens and be done with it. Let them role-play to their hearts' content. The same treatment can easily be given to combat as well. Roll 1d20 + modifiers + whatever the DM wants, and meet a DC of (undefined) to get a result of (whatever the DM wants).
If you consider Calvinball to be an example of a well-structured game, that works. For people who don't, we want a lot more to go on.
I mean no disrespect to Sean K. Reynolds... He didn't design the game to my knowledge. I'm pretty certain that it was Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, and Skip Williams that wrote the core rules.
He is a designer (one of four or five), listed on the inside front cover of the PF CRB. You probably don't want to start talking about 3E or earlier editions of D&D - some of them had very explicit text that I could have used to solve this argument long, long ago.
Likewise, this is more or less saying that you are "double" the Intelligence of a character with a 10 Int if you have a 15 Intelligence, even though you only have a 10% difference in ability. That seems pretty stupid just from a face-value standpoint. That means someone that is literally TWICE AS STRONG as the average guy only has a 10% better chance of beating that guy in a test of strength. He's only 10% more likely to push open a stuck door than a guy HALF HIS STRENGTH.
It doesn't take someone with Int 22 to see the failure of logic here.
The 5% per +1 bonus argument is one that I see a lot, but it's not the whole story. Yes, if the 10 INT guy can pass a given check, a 12 INT guy can pass it on one additional die value - there being a 5% chance of any particular value on a d20, this seems to be "5% more."
However, this exposes one of the failures of the English language. If I say I have a 10% higher chance than you of hitting a ball in baseball, I can mean either:
a) You hit .050, I hit .150
or
b) You hit ,050, I hit .055 - This is valid, I have 110% the chance to hit that you do.
The difference can be dramatic. Let's say it's a DC 20 straight INT-check, perhaps to solve a puzzle. A 10 INT guy needs a natural 20 to pass; a 15 INT guy needs a 18-20. He's three times as likely to pass. If the DC is 21, the 15 INT guy will hit it 10% of the time (and could possibly take 20 to get it), while the 10 INT guy could try until the heat death of the universe and never manage. That suddenly doesn't sound like "10% smarter," it sounds like a lot smarter.
You are confusing "author" with designer.
Here is a list of books he's written, developed, or designed: http://www.seankreynolds.com/store/index.html
Here is his rant on the 3.5 credits (read the very first line): http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/opinions/opinions3p5credits.html
Yes, he is human. Hand waving his credentials away because you disagree with him would be a mistake in judgement. He is most definitely an expert in this exact field.
My point is, he's not infallible. Because he is a designer does not mean he doesn't make mistakes. He basically came out and said that he sees ability scores of +5 to be double whatever the current is (so 20 Dex is twice as Dexterous as 15 Dex), which has really huge problems because it's demonstrate-ably false. You can look and see that someone with 15 Dex is only 10% more effective at any given task. Does it make sense that a Dex 20 human is literally four times as amazing as a Dex 10 human, but is only 25% different in actual ability?
Sorry, that's just kinda stupid. It doesn't add up mathematically. In a strait roll-off, a Dex 25 guy is 25% more likely to succeed. As Kikanaide has pointed out, characters with a higher +% are capable of things that other characters never will be. Such is the nature of RPGs. A DC 20 is effectively a 5% chance for a completely normal person to make. A DC 21 is a 0% chance. A DC 25 is effectively a -25% chance to succeed. Thus, you need at least a +25% chance just to have a shot at it. It doesn't mean that you are literally twice the ability of someone with 5 less in a score than you.
Does anyone seriously believe this is even sensible?
EDIT:
Except it's the description that says that; it's not a "rule" by mechanical standards.
For example, under the Fighter entry "the rule literally says" this:
Core Rules wrote:Fighters excel at combat — defeating their enemies, controlling the flow of battle, and surviving such sorties themselves. While their specific weapons and methods grant them a wide variety of tactics, few can match fighters for sheer battle prowess.
Does that mean we hand-wave away combat, because the rule says they defeat their enemies?
Obviously not; the description is then followed by actual game mechanics by which the fighter can do these things; it's not just left to "role playing" -- there are actual numbers involved, and detailed rules spelling out the interactions between the numbers and the dice. Sadly, the description of Charisma is not followed by these sorts of mechanics; they're glaringly absent except in the case of some specific skills, which we all seem to agree should not be ALL that Charisma is good for.I understand very well that you prefer that there be no rules for Charisma. That's okay for your game, but it's not OK for ALL games, and citing a description as if it were a rule is the wrong way to convince everyone to play as you do.
Thank you Kirth.
1. If it were about the skills checks given, they wouldn't have listed the skill checks directly above them. So it isn't about skill checks.
2. If it were only for spells, the word "spell" would be included.
It says that you use charisma for checks that represent attempts to influence others.
There are more than just spells used to influence people in the rules. It can be spells, as well as checks such as Animal Empathy, which is a check to influence others (in this case animals). It just seems to happen that spells are the most common sources of Charisma checks, but also effects such as the vampire's dominate supernatural ability, which functions like a spell but isn't one.
EDIT 2: The thing that makes your arguments worthless (and I mean Ciretose here) is that you pretty much have nothing. Kirth, TOZ, and I have provided a lot of backing from within the system to support our side of the discussion, where as you seem to have some sort of cracked idea that it's better it insult or belittle us, typically with mockery or dodging the issues (the Gary Gygax comment, for example, rest him), rather than actually backing anything up. When you do attempt to back something up, you provide 0% rules and just provide a description of a mechanical element.
The best you do is try to argue that the rules we're presenting aren't valid, or aren't used for those things, and yet you still can't actually produce any rules that ARE used for those things, which means you have patently less than we do, because while we see these rules and are like "Hey, yeah, we're pretty sure you use these rules right here", you're basically saying "No you don't" and so we're like "So show us what you do use", and then you're like "Well, you don't use those", so we're like "Hmm, yeah, looks like we do, and it works, and we have this, this, this, this, and that, to show that it seems to be the case", to which you reply stuff like "Well Gary Gygax could tell you that you were wrong and you'd still argue it".
Seriously, children.
|
|
If it were only for spells, the word "spell" would be included.See edit; the Leadership feat has specific rules, too.
But "roll a Charisma check and modify it by any amount you want to to account for whatever you want, and then make the results be whatever you want" is not in any sense a rule. It's pointless. Why roll at all, if all the modifiers and outcomes are being spun out of whole cloth anyway? Just tell the players what happens and be done with it. Let them role-play to their hearts' content. The same treatment can easily be given to combat as well. Roll 1d20 + modifiers + whatever the DM wants, and meet a DC of (undefined) to get a result of (whatever the DM wants).
If you consider Calvinball to be an example of a well-structured game, that works. For people who don't, we want a lot more to go on.
There is an entire other thread for "what do I roll to simulate a game of chess?"
How are you supposed to reasonably spell out all possible social interactions where you may try to influence people? How are you supposed to factor the willingness of the person to do anything when it varies so much from NPC to NPC?
This is the fundimental problem with social interaction in Role playing, and exactly why it still exists when all the dice rolling could be done more efficiently through a computer game.
Because you need the GM to be able to think "What would they reasonably do."
Is it so different than the GM figuring out what strategy a monster uses when attacking PCs, based on the intelligence of the Monster?
There is an entire other thread for "what do I roll to simulate a game of chess?"How are you supposed to reasonably spell out all possible social interactions where you may try to influence people? How are you supposed to factor the willingness of the person to do anything when it varies so much from NPC to NPC?
This is the fundimental problem with social interaction in Role playing, and exactly why it still exists when all the dice rolling could be done more efficiently through a computer game.
Because you need the GM to be able to think "What would they reasonably do."
Is it so different than the GM figuring out what strategy a monster uses when attacking PCs, based on the intelligence of the Monster?
Earlier in this thread I posted an example of charisma being used by two characters attempting to pick up a barmaid. In that example I used "diplomacy" as a skill.
But in actual fact, picking up a barmaid is not "diplomacy" at all. It's a completely different skill, one commonly called "seduction." Seducing someone is not remotely the same as using diplomacy on someone.
Since there is no skill in the game for "seduction" the only realistic way to role play an attempt to seduce someone is to use charisma bonuses with circumstance modifiers.
This is just one example, there are nearly infinite examples of social interaction that are not covered by "diplomacy", "bluff" or "intimidate." There is no way to deal with all of them using those three skills. So you use charisma with appropriate circumstance modifiers.
In that sense the cha 5 dwarf trying to seduce the barmaid is going to pretty much fail unless the circumstance modifiers are stacked to the high heavens.
There is an entire other thread for "what do I roll to simulate a game of chess?"How are you supposed to reasonably spell out all possible social interactions where you may try to influence people? How are you supposed to factor the willingness of the person to do anything when it varies so much from NPC to NPC?
This is the fundimental problem with social interaction in Role playing, and exactly why it still exists when all the dice rolling could be done more efficiently through a computer game.
Because you need the GM to be able to think "What would they reasonably do."
Is it so different than the GM figuring out what strategy a monster uses when attacking PCs, based on the intelligence of the Monster?
Earlier in this thread I posted an example of charisma being used by two characters attempting to pick up a barmaid. In that example I used "diplomacy" as a skill.
But in actual fact, picking up a barmaid is not "diplomacy" at all. It's a completely different skill, one commonly called "seduction." Seducing someone is not remotely the same as using diplomacy on someone.
Since there is no skill in the game for "seduction" the only realistic way to role play an attempt to seduce someone is to use charisma bonuses with circumstance modifiers.
This is just one example, there are nearly infinite examples of social interaction that are not covered by "diplomacy", "bluff" or "intimidate." There is no way to deal with all of them using those three skills. So you use charisma with appropriate circumstance modifiers.
In that sense the cha 5 dwarf trying to seduce the barmaid is going to pretty much fail unless the circumstance modifiers are stacked to the high heavens.
I'm pretty sure you can learn to be more seductive, and find out what works, what doesn't, how not to seem too over eager, how to react when the time is right. How to make them want, how to deliver, and so forth. As much as I hate it, to a point it actually is a form of diplomacy or at least coercion in reality. Knowing the proper etiquette, how to act to get the responses you're looking for, and how to push the right buttons mentally.
I still don't see how Diplomacy doesn't work for seduction. Especially since I've actually posted a step by step example of how someone might meet someone over drinks and woo them through Diplomacy checks; which no one has really shot holes in, and at least one poster actually thanked me for providing such a great example of the rules in action.
|
|
There is an entire other thread for "what do I roll to simulate a game of chess?"How are you supposed to reasonably spell out all possible social interactions where you may try to influence people? How are you supposed to factor the willingness of the person to do anything when it varies so much from NPC to NPC?
This is the fundimental problem with social interaction in Role playing, and exactly why it still exists when all the dice rolling could be done more efficiently through a computer game.
Because you need the GM to be able to think "What would they reasonably do."
Is it so different than the GM figuring out what strategy a monster uses when attacking PCs, based on the intelligence of the Monster?
Earlier in this thread I posted an example of charisma being used by two characters attempting to pick up a barmaid. In that example I used "diplomacy" as a skill.
But in actual fact, picking up a barmaid is not "diplomacy" at all. It's a completely different skill, one commonly called "seduction." Seducing someone is not remotely the same as using diplomacy on someone.
Since there is no skill in the game for "seduction" the only realistic way to role play an attempt to seduce someone is to use charisma bonuses with circumstance modifiers.
This is just one example, there are nearly infinite examples of social interaction that are not covered by "diplomacy", "bluff" or "intimidate." There is no way to deal with all of them using those three skills. So you use charisma with appropriate circumstance modifiers.
In that sense the cha 5 dwarf trying to seduce the barmaid is going to pretty much fail unless the circumstance modifiers are stacked to the high heavens.
Absolutely.
And the thing is, what value we give to circumstance modifiers is subjective. Each NPC is going to respond to each circumstance differently.
This is part of why having a good GM is important. You have to find someone who is really invested in trying to play the NPCs and the circumstances, and who really "knows" the world he creates.
Beauty and the Beast is a great example of a low charisma character getting the girl through circumstances.
Low charisma isn't unlikable anymore than high charisma is lovable. It means some combination of you not being aren't attractive, people not being drawn to you or willing to follow you, with an awkward personality.
Like many role-players I know, actually.
But some of us still married nice girls, go figure. Circumstances.
Absolutely.
And the thing is, what value we give to circumstance modifiers is subjective. Each NPC is going to respond to each circumstance differently.This is part of why having a good GM is important. You have to find someone who is really invested in trying to play the NPCs and the circumstances, and who really "knows" the world he creates.
Beauty and the Beast is a great example of a low charisma character getting the girl through circumstances.
Low charisma isn't unlikable anymore than high charisma is lovable. It means some combination of you not being aren't attractive, people not being drawn to you or willing to follow you, with an awkward personality.
Like many role-players I know, actually.
But some of us still married nice girls, go figure. Circumstances...
It wouldn't be hard to argue that the "beast" had pretty good charisma, he just lacked good looks.
I disagree with your statement that "low charisma isn't unlikable any more than high charisma is lovable.' In fact I would say that there is a very, very high correlation between high charisma and likability. There are exceptions, but they are EXCEPTIONS and as such would have to have a pretty good explanation for why someone is unlikable in spite of having a very high charisma score. In general terms people tend to like high charisma people more than they like low charisma people. And that's how the game should be played. If a player in one of my campaigns wanted to play a high charisma character as "unlikable" I would need a very good explanation of why his character is a very unlikely statistical exception to a very solid general rule.
|
|
I still don't see how Diplomacy doesn't work for seduction. Especially since I've actually posted a step by step example of how someone might meet someone over drinks and woo them through Diplomacy checks; which no one has really shot holes in, and at least one poster actually thanked me for providing such a great example of the rules in action.
Are you referring to This post?. The one where you argue that you need to ignore dictionary definitions?
Quoting you.
"You could use Diplomacy to seduce someone as well. Making them friendly or helpful, and then begin making requests for physical loving. The DC to try and seduce a married man who was faithful is actually pretty high (likely DC 25, just going by the static modifiers) and you'd probably have no chance at all if he were strong willed (charisma modifier on top of the normal DC) unless you were quite the temptress."
If a player were trying to seduce me into cheating on my wife, it would be against nature and likely put me in serious peril.
But YMMV.
As I replied in that thread, this is basically saying I can negotiate someone into sleeping with me as long as I can get them to be indifferent to me, then they will leaving in 1d4 hours when they realize it is a bad idea with the same attitude toward me as they started.
Diplomacy becomes the roofie of the role playing universe.
There was a seduction mechanic in 3.0, along with other social interaction mechanics that were removed. I supposed we could as SKR why, since he was likely involved with the process...wait...he isn't someone considered and authority I hear...
Perhaps you would like to discuss how intimidate can also be used to acquire a bride?
|
|
Absolutely.
And the thing is, what value we give to circumstance modifiers is subjective. Each NPC is going to respond to each circumstance differently.This is part of why having a good GM is important. You have to find someone who is really invested in trying to play the NPCs and the circumstances, and who really "knows" the world he creates.
Beauty and the Beast is a great example of a low charisma character getting the girl through circumstances.
Low charisma isn't unlikable anymore than high charisma is lovable. It means some combination of you not being aren't attractive, people not being drawn to you or willing to follow you, with an awkward personality.
Like many role-players I know, actually.
But some of us still married nice girls, go figure. Circumstances...
It wouldn't be hard to argue that the "beast" had pretty good charisma, he just lacked good looks.
I disagree with your statement that "low charisma isn't unlikable any more than high charisma is lovable.' In fact I would say that there is a very, very high correlation between high charisma and likability. There are exceptions, but they are EXCEPTIONS and as such would have to have a pretty good explanation for why someone is unlikable in spite of having a very high charisma score. In general terms people tend to like high charisma people more than they like low charisma people. And that's how the game should be played.
Well...a dragon or a lich isn't "likable" but you are damn well going to listen when they talk.
Charisma isn't a "like" or "dislike" score to me in the same way as there are people I respect but can't stand and people I like but don't respect.
Charisma isn't a "like" or "dislike" score to me in the same way as there are people I respect but can't stand and people I like but don't respect.
I didn't say it was a like or dislike score, I said that there is a very, very high correlation between charisma and likability. In fact "likable" is a listed synonym for "charismatic" for a very good reason. In the vast majority of cases highly charismatic people are generally more well-liked than lower charismatic people.
And that has nothing to do with who you "listen to" or "respect." If I'm comparing Michael Jordan to Larry Bird, Michael Jordan's charisma is off the charts, and as a result he was beloved by the sports public while Bird was generally respected and listened to, but did not cause the ladies in the room to swoon.
Similarly, George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama. There is little doubt who is more charismatic and that is by far the one that is more "likable" but anybody who didn't listen to either one of them is a dang fool. In many cases in my life I didn't "like" my boss, but I dang sure "listened" to them.
|
|
Charisma isn't a "like" or "dislike" score to me in the same way as there are people I respect but can't stand and people I like but don't respect.I didn't say it was a like or dislike score, I said that there is a very, very high correlation between charisma and likability. In fact "likable" is a listed synonym for "charismatic" for a very good reason. In the vast majority of cases highly charismatic people are generally more well-liked than lower charismatic people.
And that has nothing to do with who you "listen to" or "respect." If I'm comparing Michael Jordan to Larry Bird, Michael Jordan's charisma is off the charts, and as a result he was beloved by the sports public while Bird was generally respected and listened to, but did not cause the ladies in the room to swoon.
Similarly, George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama. There is little doubt who is more charismatic and that is by far the one that is more "likable" but anybody who didn't listen to either one of them is a dang fool. In many cases in my life I didn't "like" my boss, but I dang sure "listened" to them.
Fair enough, and we are close enough that it doesn't matter since the outcome is the same.
I would say your last analogy is more in my favor, as one could argue both Bush and Obama were very charismatic to be able to get so many people to allow them to lead, but depending on what side of the aisle you are on is how you decide if they are likable or not.
Either way, they got your attention.
I would say your last analogy is more in my favor, as one could argue both Bush and Obama were very charismatic to be able to get so many people to allow them to lead, but depending on what side of the aisle you are on is how you decide if they are likable or not.Either way, they got your attention.
Actually it's not the best analogy because both actually would be represented in PF as high charisma characters, but I'd put BO well above GWB something like GWB at cha 16 and BO at cha 20 or something like that. But the point is still made, respect really has nothing whatsoever to do with charisma. At least in my opinion. I "respect" people based on what they can do, not based on how they present themselves. The number of people with negative charisma who I respect greatly is very, very high. Of course I've spent most of my career working in a field that is generally associated with a lack of charisma, but the skill level in the people I've met is off the charts.
Are you referring to This post?.
Actually, I'm referring to the following:
Example: Bard with an 18 Charisma walks into a bar. He spots this fine half-elven lass who's playing a flute, and decides he wants to talk to her, impress her, then woo her. He doesn't have Diplomacy, so he's going on his raw natural ability.
She's indifferent 'cause she's not a huge b#@* and she doesn't know him. He walks up and tries to make a good first impression, and rolls 1d20+4, resulting in a 13 (DC 15). Ok, still indifferent. So he talks with her a while, and then decides he's going to try the pickup line, "Hey baby, I got another flute you can play in my room." and rolls his 1d20+4 again, and gets an 18, but she's not a girl who's into one night stands (+5 for complicated/lengthy aid) or perhaps she's worried about garnering a negative reputation for herself (+10 for dangerous aid), setting the DC at 20. Oops, bard biffed it. He's cute and all, but she's not into it. She probably laughs at him or tells him he's barking up the wrong tree. Further requests apply a cumulative +5 penalty, and may result in her becoming irritated.
Sigfried the Fairly Handsome comes into the room. Now Sigfried is something of a local hero and has reached 7th level. He started out as something of a gruff warrior, and had little to talk about rather than swords and combat training, and has a 7 charisma. However, he's gotten pretty good at relating to people, especially having been traveling with his friends so much. He now has a +7 Diplomacy, because he's invested seven ranks and a masterwork suit (+2 Diplomacy).
He sees the same half-elven lass playing the flute, and a rather disappointed bard walking off. He comes up and strikes up a conversation. He takes 10 and gets a 17, making a good first impression with a kind word and a sharp look. He listens to what she says for a while, and has a conversation with her. After a bit, he too gets a bit forward, and casually mentions that he'd love to continue their discussion in his room after dinner. 1d20+7 and he banks a 23, beating the DC 20, and Sigfried has some pillow talk later that evening.
Also those definitions and stuff.
My point is, he's not infallible. Because he is a designer does not mean he doesn't make mistakes. He basically came out and said that he sees ability scores of +5 to be double whatever the current is (so 20 Dex is twice as Dexterous as 15 Dex), which has really huge problems because it's demonstrate-ably false. You can look and see that someone with 15 Dex is only 10% more effective at any given task. Does it make sense that a Dex 20 human is literally four times as amazing as a Dex 10 human, but is only 25% different in actual ability?
Ashiel, you're seriously underestimating the effect of what I wrote up above. Let's consider a controlled test of INT - no distractions, no serious consequence of failure, etc. We're just testing INT, not clutch performance. Let's also restrict it to the class of "difficult" problems - I'll define that as problems that both test-takers can't just take-10 and solve automatically.
Character A has INT "I", character B has INT "I+5". That means character B's modifier is either 2 or 3 points higher than A's. Call A's modifier "x". Let's consider the 2-point difference, since that's the difference in SKR's example.
DC Prob(A) Prob(B) Ratio
x+11 0.50 1.00 2
x+12 0.45 1.00 2.222222222
x+13 0.40 0.50 1.25
x+14 0.35 0.45 1.285714286
x+15 0.30 0.40 1.333333333
x+16 0.25 0.35 1.4
x+17 0.20 0.30 1.5
x+18 0.15 0.25 1.666666667
x+19 0.10 0.20 2
x+20 0.05 0.15 3
x+21 0.00 0.10 ?
x+22 0.00 0.05 ?
The average ratio of successes is 1.77, ignoring the class of problems that B can solve but A can't (it's hard to average in infinity). If you set the max ratio to 3 (a fairly conservative estimate for infinity) that average ratio becomes 1.97. That's pretty damn near twice as likely. If A has an odd ability score, and B thus is rolling at x+3, the ratio's 2.15 even ignoring those super-hard problems.
So I'd say I believe SKR's answer is fairly sensible: guy B is probably just about twice as smart as guy A, even ignoring the number of languages spoken and the number of skill points.
My point is, he's not infallible. Because he is a designer does not mean he doesn't make mistakes. He basically came out and said that he sees ability scores of +5 to be double whatever the current is (so 20 Dex is twice as Dexterous as 15 Dex), which has really huge problems because it's demonstrate-ably false. You can look and see that someone with 15 Dex is only 10% more effective at any given task. Does it make sense that a Dex 20 human is literally four times as amazing as a Dex 10 human, but is only 25% different in actual ability?
Ashiel, you're seriously underestimating the effect of what I wrote up above. Let's consider a controlled test of INT - no distractions, no serious consequence of failure, etc. We're just testing INT, not clutch performance. Let's also restrict it to the class of "difficult" problems - I'll define that as problems that both test-takers can't just take-10 and solve automatically.
Character A has INT "I", character B has INT "I+5". That means character B's modifier is either 2 or 3 points higher than A's. Call A's modifier "x". Let's consider the 2-point difference, since that's the difference in SKR's example.
** spoiler omitted **
The average ratio of successes is 1.77, ignoring the class of problems that B can solve but A can't (it's hard to average in infinity). If you set the max ratio to 3 (a fairly conservative estimate for infinity) that average ratio becomes 1.97. That's pretty damn near twice as likely. If A has an odd ability score, and B thus is rolling at x+3, the ratio's 2.15 even ignoring those super-hard problems.So I'd say I believe SKR's answer is fairly sensible: guy B is...
That's cool dude, but it doesn't really have much to do with the game as it's played. I'm a strong believer in take 10, and I agree that someone with a +1 or +2 higher modifier is at an advantage versus someone with a lower modifier when doing so, but the majority of rolls, including opposed checks, are generally rolled. To flatly say that it a 15 Dex person is twice as strong as a 10 Dex person doesn't work. You actually get the same results comparing a 14 Dex person to an 11 Dex person. Whereas 11 to 16 actually has a greater disparity, as you yourself pointed out, so it's kind of wonky.
Also, I dig your hypothetical IQ test. I'm guessing it's an IQ test, since I'm not sure what kind of test you'd take for Intelligence, since it can't involve any Knowledge skills. If it did involve Knowledge skills, both would fail questions with a DC of 11 or higher, unless they had ranks. Then it would primarily come down to class skills and so forth, with the raw Int stat representing raw natural talent.
Meanwhile, in a more direct test, if you have a guy with 10 strength and a guy with 15 strength, and both try to take 10 to break down a simple door, both fail. If both roll it, one has a 10% higher chance to break it down (a 50% chance instead of a 40% chance in this case). Neither can break down a Strong Door at DC 23, even taking 20. However a 16 Strength guy can. Does that mean he's literally double some Str 11 guy (who's modifier is the same as the strength 10 guy)? Probably not. It probably means that this mild increase just does give him a chance for success (taking 20 representing trying over, and over, and over again).
EDIT: Also, what's the deal with trying to start a fight about Sean K. Reynolds? Have you abandoned everything else for this, or just trying to draw away from the problems in arguments such as Ciretose's, or those who are advocating the use of Charisma as an influence with social situations, when the game already takes it into effect with its mechanics, creating an extra penalty or extra bonus in the process?
Here, if you really want to argue about game designers and such, let's instead argue about how much Sean K. Reynolds' cleric should be able to cast some spells to make himself comparable to the Fighter in combat, while Fighters aren't getting options to turn people into various forms of plants, minerals, and fuzzy creatures, raising people from the dead, or otherwise forcing reality to conform to their whims.
A very intelligent response.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That's so awesome. Man, I should stop reading books and consult my lower intestine for facts and evidence. Bwahahahahaha.
That show is awesome.
Meanwhile, in a more direct test, if you have a guy with 10 strength and a guy with 15 strength, and both try to take 10 to break down a simple door, both fail. If both roll it, one has a 10% higher chance to break it down (a 50% chance instead of a 40% chance in this case). Neither can break down a Strong Door at DC 23, even taking 20. However a 16 Strength guy can. Does that mean he's literally double some Str 11 guy (who's modifier is the same as the strength 10 guy)? Probably not. It probably means that this mild increase just does give him a chance for success (taking 20 representing trying over, and over, and over again).
Not true at all. a 50% chance instead of a 40% chance is 25% better chance. But that doesn't directly equate to being 25% stronger. For Strength, look at the Carrying Capacity table (which was specifically called out by SKR).
EDIT: Also, what's the deal with trying to start a fight about Sean K. Reynolds? Have you abandoned everything else for this, or just trying to draw away from the problems in arguments such as Ciretose's, or those who are advocating the use of Charisma as an influence with social situations, when the game already takes it into effect with its mechanics, creating an extra penalty or extra bonus in the process?
The reason it is important is because SKR said that this is a "general rule for d20 is that a +5 improvement to an ability score is roughly double the ability of the unmodified score." This is part of the mechanics behind the game. You don't have to like it but it is one of the underlying mechanics. What this means is that there is a significant difference between a 7 and a 17 in any and all Ability Scores, which is the point many of us have been trying to make. That doesn't mean that it is perfectly quantifiable. What it means is that, those of us who accept this, will take that into account.
Here, if you really want to argue about game designers and such, let's instead argue about how much Sean K. Reynolds' cleric should be able to cast some spells to make himself comparable to the Fighter in combat, while Fighters aren't getting options to turn people into various forms of plants, minerals, and fuzzy creatures, raising people from the dead, or otherwise forcing reality to conform to their whims.
Ah, a Red Herring! Look, SKR's opinion on these two classes has nothing to do with a general rule for d20. I don't always agree with SKR's opinions. I do accept his understanding of general rules with the system he is a designer for and has been for more than a decade now.
I'm a strong believer in take 10, and I agree that someone with a +1 or +2 higher modifier is at an advantage versus someone with a lower modifier when doing so, but the majority of rolls, including opposed checks, are generally rolled. To flatly say that it a 15 Dex person is twice as strong as a 10 Dex person doesn't work. You actually get the same results comparing a 14 Dex person to an 11 Dex person. Whereas 11 to 16 actually has a greater disparity, as you yourself pointed out, so it's kind of wonky.
The idea of including take-10s was primarily so that you're not testing dumb luck. If a STR-30 guy is trying to open a DC-12 door, you're pretty sure that he isn't actually failing "strength" if he rolls a one. The guy can lift 1600 pounds off the ground and above his head - he didn't fail to produce the force necessary to open a door a commoner could open 45% of the time. Something prevented him from applying all of his prodigious strength... perhaps he stepped on a banana peel.
Even if you include all tests, down to checks that require a one, the ratio is still 1.5 (estimating infinity with 3, so this is a freakishly conservative estimate). With a difference of 3 on the roll, the average success ratio is 1.7-1.9, depending on how you estimate infinity. Estimating it over a reasonable range of tests (where the participants are challenged by the tests and it isn't dumb luck) yields the results I showed earlier, which are right around 2. The "wonky" part of it is called "rounding error," and considering the modifiers are integers only, 1.77-2.15 is amazingly close to 2.
Also, I dig your hypothetical IQ test. I'm guessing it's an IQ test, since I'm not sure what kind of test you'd take for Intelligence, since it can't involve any Knowledge skills.Yes, it's an IQ test...a good one, invented through the use of a wish spell. It could, however, be a knowledge test, assuming equal training. Assuming everything equal but the ability score, it could be a test of any skill or ability.
Meanwhile, in a more direct test...Yet if you assess performance on individuals rolls, and use many doors with DC's ranging from 11 to 22, on the average the STR 15 guy IS twice as likely to open the door. He also can carry twice as much without being encumbered, hits more often in combat, and does more damage with weapons. So, yeah, I'd still say he's effectively something like twice as strong. The lowest you can go is 1.5x as strong, and you'd definitely have to pick and choose a bit: using a +2 mod (ignoring that it can be +3), including checks down to 1 (where people are failing by sheer dumb luck, not ability), and estimating infinity by 3 (which seems a little conservative). If you use that estimate, you should feel dirty, and you still only get down to the 15 STR opening doors something like half again as often.
edit about SKR
We're talking about SKR so much because you tore into him about a basic mechanical design "error" that turns out to be fairly spot on. Allow me to state our problem:You ignored a post by one of the four developers of the game that clearly demonstrated that ability scores are meant to measure ability, because "his mechanics are weak." We've now shown his mechanics weren't that weak. +5 on an ability score approximately doubles the chance of success on ability score tests. I'm not going to comment on the cleric stuff aside from two things:
1) I haven't seen the post.
2) Preferences on class balance is completely irrelevant to if SKR knows what the design team meant by the word "ability score."
Feel free to find a developer post that indicates your position - ability scores are only designed to modify rolls, and mean nothing as far as raw ability of the character. Good luck with that.
You're still not actually using the rules. You're using an interpretation of the rules. Would all the 3.x designers agree that +5 points in ability is literally double the ability? Would Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet agree that there is such a standard?
The folks at Paizo have frequently said things that aren't actually part of the rules of the Pathfinder game system. For example, Jason seems to run a game that in fact deviates from the rules a bit, and has said as much in the past. He might come into a conversation and give his take on something, and then note that your mileage may vary. That's pretty cool of him, I think.
Until you can provide something from the actual rules to back up cases that people like Ciretose are attempting to make, then you have no argument. Post something from the rules, and we can discuss it. However, you cited some commentary Sean K. Reynolds made, and cited his position as a designer as though it were RAW. I pointed out that being a designer doesn't make someone infallible, and I was trying to demonstrate that using stuff he said to backup your lack of facts to be flawed. I wasn't intending to "tear into him".
However, I guess that would definitely put a crazy interesting spin on things. If X+5 is double X, then that means a Str 30 is effectively 16 times as strong as Str 10. So I guess if you have a 30 Strength, you can say you're as strong as 16 men working together. 16 guys pulling on a strong stuck door, taking 10 and then adding in aid anothers would net you about a result of 25 (10 + average of 1 per extra guy, assuming 1/2 of them fail their DC 10 aid another check, which is actually a little bit less likely than them succeeding, but just for simplicity). The door pops open. However, taking 10 with a 30 Str still can't open a strong door DC 23.
But I guess it's kinda cool to say that we're as strong as sixteen men. I admit that is pretty awesome. Imagine someone who was Str 35! That's 32 times as strong as someone with 10 strength. A Wizard with a 40 Intelligence is operating at 64 times the capacity of your average mind.
Kind of awesome. ^.^
You're still not actually using the rules. You're using an interpretation of the rules. Would all the 3.x designers agree that +5 points in ability is literally double the ability? Would Monte Cook, Skip Williams, and Jonathan Tweet agree that there is such a standard?
Ask them. SKR said it was a general rule for d20 system. He worked directly with them designing stuff for that same system. Sounds like they are all on the same page even if they haven't directly said so.
The folks at Paizo have frequently said things that aren't actually part of the rules of the Pathfinder game system. For example, Jason seems to run a game that in fact deviates from the rules a bit, and has said as much in the past. He might come into a conversation and give his take on something, and then note that your mileage may vary. That's pretty cool of him, I think.
Someone's campaign is not the same as the core system. My game uses very, very few house rules (I don't allow CN or Evil PCs and I allow Improved Critical to stack with Keen. Those are the only two house rules I use.). My campaign will still be different from yours (and everyone else's). We are all still using the same general mechanics though. Buhlman has not said that his campaign changes how the Core works. Golarion, Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Dark Sun, Ptolus, World of Warcraft, Everquest, Call of Cthulhu, Wheel of Time, Scarred Lands, Dragonlance, etc., all use the same general rules. Because of this, it is usually rather simple to port something over from one setting to another. The setting does not change the core mechanics.
Until you can provide something from the actual rules to back up cases that people like Ciretose are attempting to make, then you have no argument. Post something from the rules, and we can discuss it. However, you cited some commentary Sean K. Reynolds made, and cited his position as a designer as though it were RAW. I pointed out that being a designer doesn't make someone infallible, and I was trying to demonstrate that using stuff he said to backup your lack of facts to be flawed. I wasn't intending to "tear into him".
SKR was making a statement on how the system is designed. It wasn't his position. It was an underlying mechanic that he was describing. He is fallible and I don't always agree with his interpretation of things. That doesn't change the fact that he was not discussing an interpretation of the mechanics. It was an intentional mechanic built into the system.
However, I guess that would definitely put a crazy interesting spin on things. If X+5 is double X, then that means a Str 30 is effectively 16 times as strong as Str 10. So I guess if you have a 30 Strength, you can say you're as strong as 16 men working together. 16 guys pulling on a strong stuck door, taking 10 and then adding in aid anothers would net you about a result of 25 (10 + average of 1 per extra guy, assuming 1/2 of them fail their DC 10 aid another check, which is actually a little bit less likely than them succeeding, but just for simplicity). The door pops open. However, taking 10 with a 30 Str still can't open a strong door DC 23.
But I guess it's kinda cool to say that we're as strong as sixteen men. I admit that is pretty awesome. Imagine someone who was Str 35! That's 32 times as strong as someone with 10 strength. A Wizard with a 40 Intelligence is operating at 64 times the capacity of your average mind.
Looking at the Carrying Capacity table:
Strength 30 is 4 times as strong as Strength 20. This means that he can carry 532 pounds as a light load. Divide that by 16 and you get 33.25. Looking on the table, that's a Strength 10. Strength 30 is 16 times stronger than a Strength 10. Since all the ability scores use the same table to determine their bonuses and penalties, it stands to reason that Intelligence 30 is 16 times smarter than Intelligence 10.
The wizard with Intelligence of 40 is considerably smarter than Intelligence of 10. 64 times as smart seems like a reasonable approximation. You get 15 more skill points per level. That's amazing. There are 91 skills. It would take you 4 to 6 levels (depending on race and class) to have at least one rank in every single skill. You would also have a +16 to 36 skills and gain 16 languages (15 from just being smart and one more from Linguistics). Compare that to the guy with a 10 Intelligence. He would require 11 levels (assuming he is a human rogue). He would know 2 languages and have only a +1 to 36 skills.
Kind of awesome. ^.^
It is awesome, I agree.
A STR 30 character has exactly 16 times the carrying capacity of a STR 10 guy. Also, there are limits on aid another (I submit that a reasonable GM would not allow 16 people to work together on a 3' wide door).
Show me in the rules where it doesn't work. Back at you. Play by your own rules, too - no statistics or examples, evidently. Just cold hard facts.
Also, please, please, please let me bring the opinions and writings of Cook, Swift, and Tweet in on this. Please.
A STR 30 character has exactly 16 times the carrying capacity of a STR 10 guy. Also, there are limits on aid another (I submit that a reasonable GM would not allow 16 people to work together on a 3' wide door).
Show me in the rules where it doesn't work. Back at you. Play by your own rules, too - no statistics or examples, evidently. Just cold hard facts.
My biggest thing with it is that the primary benefit of ability scores - that is to say the modifier - is easily used to discredit the idea that X+5 is in fact twice as powerful as X, because the modifier is not reliably twice as powerful. It works for carrying capacity, but it doesn't work for everything else, and works less and less as the score becomes larger and the modifiers higher.
However, there are no rules specifically stating anything on the subject, so I will argue it no further. While I don't believe that, logically, it works like that (based on observation of things like 1d10+0 vs 1d10+2), there's nothing specific on it.
I will note that I'm pretty sure 16 guys pushing on a door in a hallway would generate a lot more force than one guy pushing a door in a hallway, or pulling on a rope tied to a door, or whatever.
I will not interfere with this portion of the discussion further, as I have nothing else to add from the rules.
=====
I have put forth a lot of rule evidence (far moreso than Ciretose, and others that I've seen) than the opposition. Especially concerning the Charisma & Social Interaction discussion. I feel I've made a pretty good case, and am still waiting for a counterweight of evidence, to which I have effectively realized is not coming anytime soon.
|
|
Also, please, please, please let me bring the opinions and writings of Cook, Swift, and Tweet in on this. Please.
They wrote this
http://www.purpleduckgames.com/skdiplomacy
I think it's 3.0, but I don't have the books in front of me.
Note how they defined "Helpful" through "hostile"
Or dismiss it because it isn't Pathfinder, so we have to look at pathfinder rules...who is that vegan guy who is a developer for Pathfinder, wrote Gods and Magic and big chunks of the APG...
A STR 30 character has exactly 16 times the carrying capacity of a STR 10 guy. Also, there are limits on aid another (I submit that a reasonable GM would not allow 16 people to work together on a 3' wide door).
Show me in the rules where it doesn't work. Back at you. Play by your own rules, too - no statistics or examples, evidently. Just cold hard facts.
My biggest thing with it is that the primary benefit of ability scores - that is to say the modifier - is easily used to discredit the idea that X+5 is in fact twice as powerful as X, because the modifier is not reliably twice as powerful. It works for carrying capacity, but it doesn't work for everything else, and works less and less as the score becomes larger and the modifiers higher.
However, there are no rules specifically stating anything on the subject, so I will argue it no further. While I don't believe that, logically, it works like that (based on observation of things like 1d10+0 vs 1d10+2), there's nothing specific on it.
I will note that I'm pretty sure 16 guys pushing on a door in a hallway would generate a lot more force than one guy pushing a door in a hallway, or pulling on a rope tied to a door, or whatever.
I will not interfere with this portion of the discussion further, as I have nothing else to add from the rules.
Just want to point out that this isn't evidence, it's opinion. "I'm pretty sure" isn't a statement of fact. It's a statement of certitude. Not the same thing.
I have put forth a lot of rule evidence (far moreso than Ciretose, and others that I've seen) than the opposition. Especially concerning the Charisma & Social Interaction discussion. I feel I've made a pretty good case, and am still waiting for a counterweight of evidence, to which I have effectively realized is not coming anytime soon.
Because we've gotten very side tracked and I don't want to confuse you with other posters, what exactly, is your stance on how to role play low stats compared to high stats? Do the stats (or even should they) come into play through role playing as well as mechanics or should one trump the other?