That's really all well and good, but what is the point of this thread?
Can you munchkin your way up from a stat of 7? Yes, obviously with certain attributes and skill points. But there are certain things you can't munchkin your way out of with me.
7 Str? I keep track of encumbrance and keep a close eye on extremes such as 7 Str or 5 Str
7 Con? Just remember that -7 Con is death for you and you're hit point deficit means that you're closer to that than anyone else.
Yes, because the game gives solid guidance on physical attributes, you can do that. Because the game does not give solid guidance on mental attributes it leaves it wide open for aggressive exploitation of the rules. That's the point. It's basically an "honor system" for players to build and role play characters that have strengths and weaknesses as defined by their stats, instead of building up the stats "that matter" and "role playing" their way out of any limitations from the stats that "don't matter." That's the whole point of the argument.
There's no point to the argument. You can't change those who are determined to munchkin their way out of mental stats by buying skill points because the game system in it's cracked brain way leagally allows them to do so. People will either munchkin or they won't. In PFS, I have to put up with it as a judge, in my home campaign I can exclude players who do so.
There is a point LazarX, as I stated as clearly as I could in a previous post. No, I am not going to convince players like Ashiel or others who want to "role play" their way into more powerful characters. But I am not trying to convince them. I am trying to be sure that readers who have not yet thought this issue through see my side of the argument so they can make their own decisions.
I won't waste any time arguing with Ashiel for the sake of changing her opinion on this. But I will at least give those readers a chance to see the other side instead of granting Ashiel all the playing field for her side.
If this was a private conversation I'd not waste any time on it at all. But it's not, it's a public forum where there are still minds to influence. Understand?
Please pick apart as you need to. Shoot holes in it. Whatever you like. But if you're going to provide a fair and balanced viewpoint as you suggested, please do so, right here.I have no need to "pick apart" the argument. The argument has a fundamental bias towards a definition of role playing that I disagree with, and that I think is diametrically opposed to the very concept of "role playing games."
So please explain it. Why is it diametrically opposed to the very concept of roleplaying games? Please explain to me where this concept comes from, and how it makes it somehow more correct than roleplaying in general? I noted that roleplaying can be done without mechanical backing, and roleplaying existed prior to role-playing games (even Cops & Robbers is an RPG, technically).
Where's the bias? I'm legitimately curious. Can you explain how a character is supposed to be generated, and how you expect them to be played? Show us something. Heck, make a character with 15 Point Buy, as you describe. Make him a decent warrior who's good with people. Then show us how it is supposed to be done.
I contributed to the community by showing how the rules could be used to represent a variety of character concepts, to which the ideas and personas of those characters were created from imagination. If I could craft no less than five levels per character, and some 6+ characters purely for the sake of aiding the community, would you be so adverse to generating a single 15 PB character and walking us who are wrong, through the process?
Or do you just want to tell people that we're wrong, without actually providing anything else in its absence?
Too Much TextReally, quoting a novel at someone and telling them to read and dissect it is pretty lazy...
If you want to role play apart from your stats, sure... The point of games is to have fun. If you can find people who think like you do, then again... go for it.
I don't think that it makes the position logical.
I think it makes no sense. It takes away from my enjoyment of the game, and I would have to think seriously about whether I wanted to be in a game with a DM who was OK with the INT 3 barbarian who speaks and acts perfectly normal... and comes up with battle strategies.
Int 2 creatures can approach combat from strategic points. Tigers generally prefer to attack from ambush, and even then only from behind. Wolves use pack-tactics and flank, and gang-up on enemies. Chimpanzees will form into gangs and patrol their territories and kill and castrate invaders in a way that is eerily reminiscent of gang-related killings and beat-downs for being on the wrong turf. Crows will watch for street lights to change colors, drop nuts on the ground for cars to run over them, then wait until the light is red to fetch them.
And before you start in on "instinct", such things are developed at some point and carried on. Meanwhile, crows have problem-solving intelligence, and will use tools. They can recognize faces, and can impart knowledge across multiple generations. Prairie dogs have a language of their own. These are Int 2 creatures, and these aren't even considered legal to play as Player Characters.
Pick your stats to match your character, if you wanted a smart character who's a fighter... you may have to not be optimal. Or if you wanted a foolish cleric, play a cleric of battle... and just charge into a fight every five seconds.
Ironically, wouldn't a foolish cleric have a sub-10 Wisdom, by this gamist "ability score" based roleplaying? So he'd be a cleric that couldn't actually function as a cleric, or cast clerical spells, right?
Human Fighter/1
Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
HP: 12; AC: 17; Touch: 12; Flat Footed: 15
Fort +4; Ref +2; Will +0; Initiative +2
Greatsword: +5; 2d6+4; 19-20/X2
Scale Mail: +5 AC; +3 Max Dex; -4 ACP
Feats: Power Attack, Weapon Focus (Greatsword), Skill Focus (Diplomacy)
Skills: Diplomacy +4, Intimidate +4, Knowledge (Dungeoneering)+4, Suvival +4
This fighter, despite having an average Int and Cha, demonstrates ample understanding of how to interact with people (bluff and intimidate) as well as an understanding of oozes, aberrations, caves, etc.
You speak of two different kinds of role playing, two different games. You are correct that roleplaying predates D&D. But comparing roleplaying with LEGOs to roleplaying in a pathfinder game is like comparing monopoly and Uno, they are two fundamentally different things. Pathfinder provides you with a "outline" for your character. A character cannot cast fireball without taking levels in a class that provides it as a spell. A character should not be able to solve difficult riddles or talk his way out of trouble without spending the attribute and skill points to do so. A character should always be able to play his character "down", like a high wisdom cleric that enjoys the thrill of battle and will charge head first even if it is not the wisest course of action.
I think that the suggestion of a rule change limiting the number of maximum ranks a character can have in a skill to his or her relevant stat is a good one. In this manner, for example, a character with a charisma of 7 could only obtain a maximum of 7 ranks in any charisma based skill even if he/she passed level 7. This would lessen stat dumping to a degree.
I am in favor of making such attribute score more generically usefull, like a social hp based off of cha. The lower the characters social hp the less they are liked/accepted. A 0 social hp means they cannot interact with most people or are even wanted by the law.
@brassbaboon: I understand and am in no way annoyed at how you choose to display your argument, makes sense, but ya don't have to be rude to ashiel.
Anyway, lets say I make a barbarian and I don't show you my stats, as we play I act a certain way and my character performs to how I portray him, everyone has a grand old time. 6 sessions in you notice my character sheet and I've dumped everything but strength and con (yeah I know even by optimization that's stupid). Was my characters previous actions now somehow invalid? Does my character somehow have less depth? nope, you can't tell the difference.
Why force people to find the difference if the game doesn't? That seems to go directly against the fundamentals of the game.
While I'm all for roleplaying the stats you assign your character, I think most people have a unwarranted aversion to a 7 stat.
The way I see it, stat bonuses incrementally increase up to 18 and decrease down to 3. So then, too, would a character's ability or disability increase or decrease.
A stat of 9 or 12 is only slightly above or below average. You could watch someone all day and not know they were a little better or worse than everyone else if you weren't paying attention. A single plus or minus one to the role, really?
A stat of 7 or 14 is moderately above or below average. You could tell just by watching them that they're a bit more or less able. But a 14 isn't winning any world championships, and a 7 doesn't need help to button his pants.
A stat of 5 or 16 is significantly above or below average. These people still may not be winning world championships, but they're sure in the running for all the state championships. They may even go all national. On there other side, a 5 is kinda noticeably handicapped. They might need help getting along in certain areas. At least getting along at the same level as anyone else.
A stat of 3 or 18 is severely above or below average. These people ARE the world champions, and a character with a 3 is practically enfeebled.
These are just my interpretations. Someone might think that a character with a 8 Dex is wheel-chair bound, or a 4 Int can do theoretical physics. Some might not care either way and not even look at their stats unless they're making a roll.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like that description, Steve. It makes a lot of sense and reinforces my 'no stats below an 8' preference.
Agreed, it's pretty much how I think of the stats (I posted something similar in another thread).
My biggest problem with the idea of 'I will play my character how I want, stats be damned' train of thought, is that those who I have personally encountered who want to do it, want to do it despite the rest of the group not wanting to.
My response to Shadow of Death above would be, if the whole group is not playing stats, that's fine, it's a group decision.
If on the other hand, you ignore your stats, but nobody else does, you are cheating within the group. They are making resource allocation decisions for their character to put those stats the way they want to roleplay their character. You are however just min/maxing for mechanical benefit and insisting on ignoring them. This is an unfair stance to take with regards to the other players, as you can then out-face the guy who put 16 into his CHA to be the face, because you insist on ignoring and never acknowledging the 7 cha or 7 int on your sheet.
Agreed, it's pretty much how I think of the stats (I posted something similar in another thread).
My biggest problem with the idea of 'I will play my character how I want, stats be damned' train of thought, is that those who I have personally encountered who want to do it, want to do it despite the rest of the group not wanting to.
My response to Shadow of Death above would be, if the whole group is not playing stats, that's fine, it's a group decision.
If on the other hand, you ignore your stats, but nobody else does, you are cheating within the group. They are making resource allocation decisions for their character to put those stats the way they want to roleplay their character. You are however just min/maxing for mechanical benefit and insisting on ignoring them. This is an unfair stance to take with regards to the other players, as you can then out-face the guy who put 16 into his CHA to be the face, because you insist on ignoring and never acknowledging the 7 cha or 7 int on your sheet.
I don't like to be limited in a characters personality because of class choice. The dragonborn sorceror who lives in the woods because the townfolk think he's a monster? yeah you'll never get to play that guy, he'd have to be cha 7-8 to be portrayed with stats.
I don't like to be limited in a characters personality because of class choice. The dragonborn sorceror who lives in the woods because the townfolk think he's a monster? yeah you'll never get to play that guy, he'd have to be cha 7-8 to be portrayed with stats.
Agreed, it's pretty much how I think of the stats (I posted something similar in another thread).
My biggest problem with the idea of 'I will play my character how I want, stats be damned' train of thought, is that those who I have personally encountered who want to do it, want to do it despite the rest of the group not wanting to.
My response to Shadow of Death above would be, if the whole group is not playing stats, that's fine, it's a group decision.
If on the other hand, you ignore your stats, but nobody else does, you are cheating within the group. They are making resource allocation decisions for their character to put those stats the way they want to roleplay their character. You are however just min/maxing for mechanical benefit and insisting on ignoring them. This is an unfair stance to take with regards to the other players, as you can then out-face the guy who put 16 into his CHA to be the face, because you insist on ignoring and never acknowledging the 7 cha or 7 int on your sheet.
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I fail to see how a cha of 7-8 equals monster. In 3.5, the warlocks were supposed to be feared and despised. What added to this problem was their high cha drawing the eye and causing it to linger, making it harder for them to get by. Their cha made them be treated like a monster because it was easier for people to notice them. You dragonblooded sorcerer who lives in the woods because people think he is a monster would not draw admiration from his high charisma, but fear (cha is added to both diplomacy and intimidate).
That's a good way of looking at it Steve, I like it. As for Shadow of Death, if your character was role played as wooing all the tavern wenches, nimbly twirling knives during an interrogation, decoding complex puzzles and codes, or being utterly calm and logical no matter the situation and I found out you had a 7 in charisma, dexterity, intelligence, and wisdom it would destroy my investment in the game since, for me, the idea of rolling up a character and roleplaying it as opposed to free form or fan fiction writing is that those stats matter.
It's like acting or writing within a framework, you get into the mindset and abilities of another person, not yourself. If I read a fanfiction story about the Lord of the Rings where, for example, Frodo and Sam decided to take on the front gates of Mordor and fought their way through the whole army I'd cry foul because their characters as written and outlined would never do, or be able to do, such a crazy thing. Or if someone did an improv skit where people were assigned roles and told to act out a scene in a diner and the guy assigned to be a terminally ill, bedridden patient in the hospital decides to jump up and do cartwheels. You have a role, you play to the advantages and disadvantages of that role, otherwise why have them?
Ninja'd about Charisma: Charisma is tough, because of how intangible it is. If I had a player dumping charisma we'd have to hash out exactly what he pictures in his mind the charisma dump being and what I see it as being. If he wanted a 7 charisma to represent him being, say, a dwarf like Tyrion Lannister but still be quick witted and sharp of tongue. I'd allow him to buy up diplomacy and bluff with the idea that while he'll be able to talk circles around people and argue points well he will still be looked down on initially, and even afterwards, putting up with having little in the way of true respect and companionship. Or maybe have it represent a physical injury, like the Hound's facial burn combined with being gruff and scornful of others, but still be intimidating. I don't see why his intimidation would be affected by a horrible scar, quite the opposite in fact, and would certainly not cap his ranks in intimidate and would probably even work with the player on getting a trait that lets him use strength instead of charisma for intimidate.
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I fail to see how a cha of 7-8 equals monster. In 3.5, the warlocks were supposed to be feared and despised. What added to this problem was their high cha drawing the eye and causing it to linger, making it harder for them to get by. Their cha made them be treated like a monster because it was easier for people to notice them. You dragonblooded sorcerer who lives in the woods because people think he is a monster would not draw admiration from his high charisma, but fear (cha is added to both diplomacy and intimidate).
It was just an example (although your interpretation is pretty cool actually). how about the bard that people hate to have around because although it is his dream he sings off-key and forgets details when telling stories. Same point made.
That's a good way of looking at it Steve, I like it. As for Shadow of Death, if your character was role played as wooing all the tavern wenches, nimbly twirling knives during an interrogation, decoding complex puzzles and codes, or being utterly calm and logical no matter the situation and I found out you had a 7 in charisma, dexterity, intelligence, and wisdom it would destroy my investment in the game since, for me, the idea of rolling up a character and roleplaying it as opposed to free form or fan fiction writing is that those stats matter.
lucky people can't succeed? cause if a player with those stats is rolling well enough to do all that then yeah the character is just lucky, that seems like someone that could exist. He can roleplay that as long as his luck holds out, when it fails he can explain to everyone it was just dumb luck, character gains some growth.
What's the point of having low stats if they are ignored? A character sheet is the sum of what makes your character. As GM, I do not allow people to ignore their stats. If you have a 3 Int (I know it's an extreme) and you are coming up with master battle tactics, I will tell you that your character is simply not smart enough to do that. If you want to make a genius character, then put your stats where they should be. Now if your character has ranks in Knowledge (history) and mimics tactics he has learned from that, then it's ok. Adapting would be difficult if the situation changes though.
As for animals and their tactics, they are simply working off of instinct. You know what happens when the situation changes and the animal can't use it's instinctual tactics? It/they either die or run. They just can't adapt. This is a 2 Intelligence. A 3 isn't that much more intelligent.
If you want to play a charismatic character, then make sure your Charisma doesn't have any penalties. Just like you won't play a 7 Strength character as a strong man, you shouldn't play a 7 Charisma character as if he's a beloved prince.
If you want to improve some aspects of your character, put points in appropriate skills but remember that at the core, your stats "represent a creature's most basic attributes. The higher the score, the more raw potential and talent your character possesses."
So please explain it. Why is it diametrically opposed to the very concept of roleplaying games? Please explain to me where this concept comes from, and how it makes it somehow more correct than roleplaying in general? I noted that roleplaying can be done without mechanical backing, and roleplaying existed prior to role-playing games (even Cops & Robbers is an RPG, technically).
Where's the bias? I'm legitimately curious. Can you explain how a character is supposed to be generated, and how you expect them to be played? Show us something. Heck, make a character with 15 Point Buy, as you describe. Make him a decent warrior who's good with people. Then show us how it is supposed to be done.
I'll answer that 1st level Human Fighter, a leader in genesis
STR 16 Human Bonus
DEX 11
Con 14
Int 12
Wis 10
Chr 12Init +4 HP 15
Skills Diplomacy +2, Ride +4, Climb +7, Jump +7
Feats: Improved Intitative, ToughnessWeapons and gear I leave up to various possibilities. But that's the core of a Fighter who's not hopeless at dealing with people, one that could evolve in various ways.
Thank you, LazarX.
I would pose a few questions to you as we go, so please humor me as we go.1) I see that you have no Dexterity modifier. Do you plan to take advantage of your Fighter's Armor Training ability that allows him to enjoy a higher AC for being a Fighter? Do you plan on using ranged weapons or only melee? What do you plan to do about your naturally low Reflex save?
2) You've taken Diplomacy as a skill, which would suggest that you view it as somewhat key to him being good with people. At this level, he receives an equal benefit from Diplomacy as he does from Charisma. Do you plan to raise his Diplomacy further, to represent his social grace?
3) Your will saves are quite poor as a Fighter. Have you given any thought to how you will offset this?
How would you say that this character is supposed to be played? I can see that there is some mechanical viability in this character, even though his Charisma only grants him a +1 bonus to a few skills which may or may not be part of his concept, at the cost of ones that are more critical to surviving or using his class features. However, since we're also discussing roleplaying aspects, can you explain how this character is supposed to be roleplayed?
Can you show how the Fighter is supposed to be roleplayed, based on his ability scores (but not skill modifiers, circumstance modifiers, trait bonuses, feats, or other aspects of the whole), so that we can see what we're doing wrong?
If this build is the correct one, please explain why.
EDIT: To be specific, because I may have been a bit vague, I displayed a Fighter in my Practical Optimization thread that was well rounded as a character, but sported a 7 Charisma. I then explained how the character was intended to play out, explaining his penalty to Charisma and how that functioned as part of his persona, and how over five levels he evolves as an organic character.
Since X ability score, by these arguments, must mean a specific thing, so please explain how it functions, as well as the correct way to play a character of 12 Charisma, versus a 13 Charisma, or a 7 Charisma, to demonstrate the "correct way to roleplay".
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I fail to see how a cha of 7-8 equals monster. In 3.5, the warlocks were supposed to be feared and despised. What added to this problem was their high cha drawing the eye and causing it to linger, making it harder for them to get by. Their cha made them be treated like a monster because it was easier for people to notice them. You dragonblooded sorcerer who lives in the woods because people think he is a monster would not draw admiration from his high charisma, but fear (cha is added to both diplomacy and intimidate).
It was just an example (although your interpretation is pretty cool actually). how about the bard that people hate to have around because although it is his dream he sings off-key and forgets details when telling stories. Same point made.
That's a good way of looking at it Steve, I like it. As for Shadow of Death, if your character was role played as wooing all the tavern wenches, nimbly twirling knives during an interrogation, decoding complex puzzles and codes, or being utterly calm and logical no matter the situation and I found out you had a 7 in charisma, dexterity, intelligence, and wisdom it would destroy my investment in the game since, for me, the idea of rolling up a character and roleplaying it as opposed to free form or fan fiction writing is that those stats matter.lucky people can't succeed? cause if a player with those stats is rolling well enough to do all that then yeah the character is just lucky, that seems like someone that could exist. He can roleplay that as long as his luck holds out, when it fails he can explain to everyone it was just dumb luck, character gains some growth.
Sings off key (no ranks in perform (sing)) but plays the flute wonderfully (ranks in perform (wind instruments)), still would rather sing. Low wisdom (poor memory) and few to no ranks in Oratory, can't remember all of the points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you're being a little unfair to him Ashiel. You said, "Heck, make a character with 15 Point Buy, as you describe. Make him a decent warrior who's good with people. Then show us how it is supposed to be done."
He did that, he made a 15 point buy character who has decent potential for combat as a 1st level character while having decent people skills and above average(slightly) intelligence and personal magnetism. It's not a "correct" built because there are none, however it's outline meets the qualifications. Decent Warrior? He has a high strength and good constitution, so he can take hits and dish them out, and his low dexterity at 1st level just means he doesn't have to worry about how restrictive the splint mail he buys is compared to paying a premium for field plate of banded mail. Good with people? Well, he has a slightly above average charisma and a rank in diplomacy, so compared to the average man he can function better in situations requiring diplomacy. How you play this is up to the player, maybe he is just a man of impressive stature with a voice that makes you want to listen, maybe he's a beat up old sergeant with a face only a mother could love but talks and acts as if he expects to be followed, so average men do, or whatever justification sounds good to you.
Changing around the specifics of how you roleplay an advantage or disadvantage is different than ignoring it. If this same fighter had a 7 charisma and no ranks in diplomacy, but during role play spoke of his great leadership of the forces at X battle and is described as having dozens of noble women knocking down his doors as a DM, or fellow player, that would irk me. Heh, of course I could justify it as a DM by saying that in the first place his "leadership" was a front, he thought he was in charge but the men under his command hated him and followed his second command, letting the 7 cha/0 diplomacy player think he was leading, and in the second case the women knocking down his door were seeking his wealth and station but not him.
It was just an example (although your interpretation is pretty cool actually). how about the bard that people hate to have around because although it is his dream he sings off-key and forgets details when telling stories. Same point made.
I respectfully disagree with this statement. I fail to see how a cha of 7-8 equals monster. In 3.5, the warlocks were supposed to be feared and despised. What added to this problem was their high cha drawing the eye and causing it to linger, making it harder for them to get by. Their cha made them be treated like a monster because it was easier for people to notice them. You dragonblooded sorcerer who lives in the woods because people think he is a monster would not draw admiration from his high charisma, but fear (cha is added to both diplomacy and intimidate).
Nice interpretation of the bard.
That's a good way of looking at it Steve, I like it. As for Shadow of Death, if your character was role played as wooing all the tavern wenches, nimbly twirling knives during an interrogation, decoding complex puzzles and codes, or being utterly calm and logical no matter the situation and I found out you had a 7 in charisma, dexterity, intelligence, and wisdom it would destroy my investment in the game since, for me, the idea of rolling up a character and roleplaying it as opposed to free form or fan fiction writing is that those stats matter.lucky people can't succeed? cause if a player with those stats is rolling well enough to do all that then yeah the character is just lucky, that seems like someone that could exist. He can roleplay that as long as his luck holds out, when it fails he can explain to everyone it was just dumb luck, character gains some growth.
Sure lucky people can succeed, once or twice, but that's not what you're describing or what my example was. You were describing a barbarian who spent levels acting one way only to have his stats be subpar for all the things he was doing. That's not luck, luck doesn't let your character be something he's not and hasn't worked at. I could build a wizard with 7 strength, constitution, and intelligence and not tell the other players but act as if they were all average when I didn't have to roll. I could have him marching at the front of the group, going on morning runs with the barbarian and ranger, drinking all night and going strong while talking about how impressively cut he is and how he charms all the women, then after a half dozen sessions reveal my low stats, but why?
What's the point of having a disadvantage and ignoring it whenever it suits the story the character want to tell or gets in the way of what the character wants to do? Nobody, not one person, would listen to me argue that my 7 con wizard is really tough as they come, doing marathons for breakfast and boozing all night with no problem, so should not have to roll for forced marches or take a penalty to fortitude saves for poisons. Heck, I could say that my wizard is grizzled and has been fighting since he was a kid, never getting knocked out but that doesn't let his 7 strength form carry a full pack or let him ignore his 7 constitution when rolling hit points.
I don't like to be limited in a characters personality because of class choice. The dragonborn sorceror who lives in the woods because the townfolk think he's a monster? yeah you'll never get to play that guy, he'd have to be cha 7-8 to be portrayed with stats.
I see. So, what you want is more important than the other 5 people at the table then. They wish to have a game where you create your character so the concept and stats mesh. You wish to play in a game where you ignore stats when it's detrimental to your concept.
I find that highly selfish. If you don't like the way a group is playing, you go find a different group. You don't force your way of playing on them by ignoring their desired method of play.
I think you're being a little unfair to him Ashiel. You said, "Heck, make a character with 15 Point Buy, as you describe. Make him a decent warrior who's good with people. Then show us how it is supposed to be done."
Exactly. Show us how it is supposed to be done. He's made a decent warrior that's good with people. Now, I would like him to show us how it supposed to be done.
He did that, he made a 15 point buy character who has decent potential for combat as a 1st level character while having decent people skills and above average(slightly) intelligence and personal magnetism. It's not a "correct" built because there are none, however it's outline meets the qualifications.
By correct, Brass Baboon clearly indicates that there is a correct and incorrect way to play. LazarX has volunteered to answer for Brass Baboon, so I'm asking for him to carry through and explain what makes this the correct way.
Decent Warrior? He has a high strength and good constitution, so he can take hits and dish them out, and his low dexterity at 1st level just means he doesn't have to worry about how restrictive the splint mail he buys is compared to paying a premium for field plate of banded mail.
The average starting gold for a 1st level Fighter is 175 gold pieces. Splint mail is 200 gold pieces. One cannot expect to have splint mail at 1st level. A more likely candidate would be chainmail (150 gp) or scale mail (50 gp, allowing you to invest more in adventuring equipment). Splint mail is not an option.
Good with people? Well, he has a slightly above average charisma and a rank in diplomacy, so compared to the average man he can function better in situations requiring diplomacy. How you play this is up to the player, maybe he is just a man of impressive stature with a voice that makes you want to listen, maybe he's a beat up old sergeant with a face only a mother could love but talks and acts as if he expects to be followed, so average men do, or whatever justification sounds good to you.
And perhaps if he had Cha 7 and Skill Focus (Diplomacy) giving him the same +2 modifier, would that be "doing it wrong"? What about having a 12 Charisma makes people follow him, when he still has to hit the same DC X checks to get assistance from people, beyond the +1 modifier, I mean (which is equivalent to a single rank).
Changing around the specifics of how you roleplay an advantage or disadvantage is different than ignoring it. If this same fighter had a 7 charisma and no ranks in diplomacy, but during role play spoke of his great leadership of the forces at X battle and is described as having dozens of noble women knocking down his doors as a DM, or fellow player, that would irk me. Heh, of course I could justify it as a DM by saying that in the first place his "leadership" was a front, he thought he was in charge but the men under his command hated him and followed his second command, letting the 7 cha/0 diplomacy player think he was leading, and in the second case the women knocking down his door were seeking his wealth and station but not him.
This comes back to Brass Baboon suggesting there is a right and wrong way to play. If there is a right and wrong way to play a 12 Charisma, I want to know what it is.
As to the 7 Cha/0 Diplomacy character thinking he was leading, a ladies' man, and what-not, I'd believe he was delusional (and perhaps that might very well be the idea) merely because he can't actually do that. See, the penalty to his Charisma, with nothing invested into his overcoming that, means that he will never be even average at it. He might appear more like Zap Branigan who thinks he's the coolest guy in the world, but he's just some fool. :P
However, what makes this more acceptable than this Fighter, who has an organic "human growth" aspect to him, but has a 7 Charisma?
I feel like I'm being ignored here...^^!
Just to put some perspective on the "3d6 makes 7 mean lower than 85% of the population" argument: 14% means one in seven. Generally speaking, then, one person in seven in society overall will have a 7 Con or lower. Yes, every seventh person you pass on the street will have a charisma of 7 or less. Monster? Not likely.
I feel like I'm being ignored here...^^!
I haven't really objected to anything you've said. So I didn't correct you. :) Didn't ignore you though. :)
Just to put some perspective on the "3d6 makes 7 mean lower than 85% of the population" argument: 14% means one in seven. Generally speaking, then, one person in seven in society overall will have a 7 Con or lower. Yes, every seventh person you pass on the street will have a charisma of 7 or less. Monster? Not likely.
Actually,
About 1 in 7 people for me would be about the right number of people I encounter whom I would not want my children to come into contact with (if I had children).If you total up all the gang bangers, murderers, thieves, drunk drivers, and child molesters, I think you'd have more than 1 in 7 people belonging to one of those groups. So yeah, creepy mc stalkster is one of those 1 in 7 people.
Most people don't think that way though because humans tend to self-congregate, so most of the 1 in 7's you don't want to deal with are all in the same place, which is not near you.
Just to put some perspective on the "3d6 makes 7 mean lower than 85% of the population" argument: 14% means one in seven. Generally speaking, then, one person in seven in society overall will have a 7 Con or lower. Yes, every seventh person you pass on the street will have a charisma of 7 or less. Monster? Not likely.Actually,
About 1 in 7 people for me would be about the right number of people I encounter whom I would not want my children to come into contact with (if I had children).If you total up all the gang bangers, murderers, thieves, drunk drivers, and child molesters, I think you'd have more than 1 in 7 people belonging to one of those groups. So yeah, creepy mc stalkster is one of those 1 in 7 people.
Most people don't think that way though because humans tend to self-congregate, so most of the 1 in 7's you don't want to deal with are all in the same place, which is not near you.
Yay. Low charisma now means you're evil gang-banging murdering thieves that drink and drive and molest children on the weekends. /joke
EDIT: If every 7th person on your street is any of the above, I sure as heck don't want to live on your street. :P
Just to put some perspective on the "3d6 makes 7 mean lower than 85% of the population" argument: 14% means one in seven. Generally speaking, then, one person in seven in society overall will have a 7 Con or lower. Yes, every seventh person you pass on the street will have a charisma of 7 or less. Monster? Not likely.Actually,
About 1 in 7 people for me would be about the right number of people I encounter whom I would not want my children to come into contact with (if I had children).If you total up all the gang bangers, murderers, thieves, drunk drivers, and child molesters, I think you'd have more than 1 in 7 people belonging to one of those groups. So yeah, creepy mc stalkster is one of those 1 in 7 people.
Most people don't think that way though because humans tend to self-congregate, so most of the 1 in 7's you don't want to deal with are all in the same place, which is not near you.
Yay. Low charisma now means you're evil gang-banging murdering thieves that drink and drive and molest children on the weekends. /joke
EDIT: If every 7th person on your street is any of the above, I sure as heck don't want to live on your street. :P
Los Angeles?
Lets look at the example of the 3 int berzerker tactics master.
Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects their spellcasting ability in many ways. Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3. A character with an Intelligence score of 0 is comatose. Some creatures do not possess an Intelligence score. Their modifier is +0 for any Intelligence-based skills or checks.
You apply your character's Intelligence modifier to:
- The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
- The number of skill points gained each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.
- Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics, and Spellcraft checks.
A wizard gains bonus spells based on his Intelligence score. The minimum Intelligence score needed to cast a wizard spell is 10 + the spell's level.
The rules say that the berzerker is not comatose, and that he is beyond the threshold for acting mostly on animal instinct, and also that this berzerker is fully capable of speech.
The rules also say that if the character tries to do something that involves an Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics or Spellcraft skill check, he takes a -4 ability score penalty to this check. The fluff is that when this character attempts to do something involving his learning or reasoning, he has a 20% chance of failure versus the average (INT 10) person.
If the player consistently rolls high, this penalty will never come up in play. Similarly, if this character invests ranks in knowledge based skills, he spends time educating himself and catches up, perhaps even surpasses the average human chance for success in these fields.
Logically then, this character only has to role play his shortcomings when he fails where others would succeed on rolls, such as when he rolls a failure on a check, but only fails by 4 or less, because that is the only time when his low intelligence is coming into play.
If you want low mental score characters to play act at being mentally disabled, you are objectively being insensitive to mentally disabled persons. Also you are objectively wrong about what an ability score modifier penalty to checks entails in the d20 system, and by extension in Pathfinder.
If you want to make a house rule where the int 3 berzerker has to make a DC 10 check to come up with a tactic in character, go ahead; however, make sure you force the int 18 wizard to make the exact same check and enforce his failure on a 1 or a 2. If you believe that players at your table are having the wrong fun.
Yay. Low charisma now means you're evil gang-banging murdering thieves that drink and drive and molest children on the weekends. /jokeEDIT: If every 7th person on your street is any of the above, I sure as heck don't want to live on your street. :P
I used to live in St. Louis. Look up the crime rates for Downtown St. Louis online. My wife and I tried to avoid going downtown if at all possible for anything other than to see the arch, union station, or a ball game. In all 3 instances, we stayed in the heavily police patrolled areas, or rode the train into the ball game (due to the heavy police presence).
I now live in Texas, where everyone carries a gun. I feel much safer now. Nobody knows if I have a gun or not, but they damn sure assume I do. :)
Since about 3 in 7 people in down town I would not want my children to know, and about 1 in 30 outside, I'd say it averaged out to about 1 in 7. And I'm fairly certain the average CHA stat for the people in downtown St. Louis I wouldn't want my kids to know was about 7. There were lots of people down there that just meeting their eyes made my spine shiver, without them ever getting a minute to talk to me to attempt a diplomacy check. ;)
Los Angeles?
Worse, St. Louis (check the crime stats for downtown, worse than LA).
As an aside, I have seen a 1st level, charisma 10 rogue bluff every single commoner in an entire village due to having bluff as a trained skill and constantly winning opposed checks. He failed maybe 3 in around 50 tries. You never know what your character is going to be able to accomplish or win at based solely on potential, you have to roll the dice and see what the outcome is.
I would add to the idea that you should not go around with an charisma 7 character and expect to be treated like a beloved prince if you aren't willing to roll for it. It is not a reasonable expectation that you will meet with success every time unless you are lucky.
Being in a state of pessimistic resignment about your character's ability to succeed based on his ability scores is not the same thing as role playing your character.
However, you associate the crime and evil in the area with their low Charisma? Wouldn't most of the gang leaders have pretty solid modifiers to help them lead the gangs and get people to do what they want them to do, even when it's wrong?
Likewise, if you met someone that sent chills up your spine, wouldn't that actually make their presence more powerful? Wouldn't that make them naturally gifted at Intimidate, or perhaps rely on it regularly?
I dunno, I just don't see your logic behind this. You've effectively tied Charisma to Alignment, and honestly that's a first for me.
Worse, St. Louis (check the crime stats for downtown, worse than LA).
Los Angeles?
I know people from Texas, it's supposed to be murder (more or less literally).
|
This is why I don't get people that say Charisma is what you use to influence people. It's really not. It's what gets you noticed. You stand out when you're a paladin or a sorcerer. Maybe because of the way you look. Maybe because of the way you sound. But the low charisma rogue is the guy who you see but don't really notice. The nondescript everyman that you forget was even there a minute later.
At least, that's how I played the 6 Cha skulks in Shackled City.
I see. So, what you want is more important than the other 5 people at the table then. They wish to have a game where you create your character so the concept and stats mesh. You wish to play in a game where you ignore stats when it's detrimental to your concept.
I find that highly selfish. If you don't like the way a group is playing, you go find a different group. You don't force your way of playing on them by ignoring their desired method of play.
Yes, id rather force them to come up with a unique concept instead of "this is generic wizard A". It isn't selfish, one day they'll have a character instead of a loot collector.
...
Do you really think the average intelligence of Americans is 10, while in rest of the first world, it is 12-14?
...
Actually, yes :-)
Actually, yes :-)...
Do you really think the average intelligence of Americans is 10, while in rest of the first world, it is 12-14?
...
+1, and I am (sadly) an American ;P
I think you're being a little unfair to him Ashiel. You said, "Heck, make a character with 15 Point Buy, as you describe. Make him a decent warrior who's good with people. Then show us how it is supposed to be done."Exactly. Show us how it is supposed to be done. He's made a decent warrior that's good with people. Now, I would like him to show us how it supposed to be done.
He did that, he made a 15 point buy character who has decent potential for combat as a 1st level character while having decent people skills and above average(slightly) intelligence and personal magnetism. It's not a "correct" built because there are none, however it's outline meets the qualifications.By correct, Brass Baboon clearly indicates that there is a correct and incorrect way to play. LazarX has volunteered to answer for Brass Baboon, so I'm asking for him to carry through and explain what makes this the correct way.
Decent Warrior? He has a high strength and good constitution, so he can take hits and dish them out, and his low dexterity at 1st level just means he doesn't have to worry about how restrictive the splint mail he buys is compared to paying a premium for field plate of banded mail.The average starting gold for a 1st level Fighter is 175 gold pieces. Splint mail is 200 gold pieces. One cannot expect to have splint mail at 1st level. A more likely candidate would be chainmail (150 gp) or scale mail (50 gp, allowing you to invest more in adventuring equipment). Splint mail is not an option.
It will be very early on in 1st level, considering that by second level that fighter will have 1000gp according to the Wealth by Level chart, so the first level fighter could reasonably expect to pick it up early on in his career.
Anyways, that's a far side point to the main point which is that stats should matter. And yes, if you made a fighter with skill focus in diplomacy with a 7 charisma I have nothing against that player being diplomatic. Still, that initial charisma, the commanding presence some people have before they even open their mouth, will be weaker than someone with a higher charisma.
For an example of this using the rules, while the 7 charisma person with a rank and skill focus will do slightly better when in a position to use diplomacy his low charisma still negatively affects his Leadership score for the Leadership feat, which to me means that the raw stats still matter to a point. No matter how many ranks the 7 charisma player puts into diplomacy his base leadership score will be 3 behind the 12 charisma fighter at the same character level. Whatever the reasoning behind it something about the 7 charisma fighter just makes it harder to inspire loyalty.
I don't think your example is any less acceptable than the one put up here. You weren't positing him as some great leader and fantastic diplomat from the start, he grew into it until he was partly able to overcame his innate disadvantages with speaking and I see nothing wrong with that. What I would see wrong is if you ignored that disadvantage altogether and dropped charisma while roleplaying him as a dashing ladies' man who can quick talk his way out of situations. Mostly I was opposed to Shadow's example of the barbarian who dumped everything but strength and constitution but was played as if he hadn't dumped anything.
+1, and I am (sadly) an American ;PActually, yes :-)...
Do you really think the average intelligence of Americans is 10, while in rest of the first world, it is 12-14?
...
I wouldn't say the entire rest of the world is any more or less intelligent than Americans, people are people and there's stupidity enough to go around.
Yo just a heads up, singular intelligence is so passe (multiple forms of intelligence is what's in these days), and crime doesn't come from bein' ugly.
hth