EDIT: You're correct. Brain fail on my part.
We all have them sometimes.
EDIT 2: So it would be DC 14 rather than 13. So a 5% difference. Still a 30% chance to walk away from getting stabbed in the throat by an 11 Strength halfling.
No, because this halfling does hitpoint damage. Obviously for a particular commoner, the percentages will be different based on his HP (a 6 HP commoner can't be knocked straight unconscious), but for the general class of commoners the percentages are:
33.3% standing (>=1 hp)
16.7% staggered
50% unconscious and bleeding out - from the blow, not the FORT save
Adding in the fort save, which has an statistical average of 35% to pass, you get:
11.7% standing (>=1 hp)
5.8% staggered
17.5% unconscious
65% dead
By contrast, a 5STR halfling has a (much easier to calculate, so I'll do it in one step):
36.7% standing (>=1 hp)
9.2% staggered
9.2% unconscious
45% dead
All in all, the 5STR halfling has a 46% chance that the guy gets up and swings at him. The 10 or 11 STR halfling has a less than half of that.
But - and this is important to me - the 5 STR halfling DIDN'T BREAK THE SKIN WITH A DAGGER.
stuff about orcs losing to commoners
Forget not that orcs have ferocity now! This ups their effective hp considerably. I've overlooked that myself.
Also, I am saddened that my probabilities are now on a page break and unlikely to be seen by anyone. I put way too much effort into that.
No, because this halfling does hitpoint damage. Obviously for a particular commoner, the percentages will be different based on his HP (a 6 HP commoner can't be knocked straight unconscious), but for the general class of commoners the percentages are:
I was speaking of the coup de grace kill factor. The damage alone from the strength 11 halfling would likely drop the average 3 Hp commoner, but it doesn't mean that the Str 5 halfling with the tiny dagger couldn't kill him in a single strike. Just that it was less likely. The odds of him surviving the saving throw of the coup de grace was correct.
But - and this is important to me - the 5 STR halfling DIDN'T BREAK THE SKIN WITH A DAGGER.
So you say. However, damage is not synonymous with breaking skin. Likewise, a character could experience lots of small cuts and bruises without suffering lethal damage. Getting punched in the face could bust your lips, cause you to bleed, but probably won't actually threaten your life without certain circumstances at work.
Likewise, you can deliver an injury poison with a nonlethal damage attack.
Forget not that orcs have ferocity now! This ups their effective hp considerably. I've overlooked that myself.
You still got goblins, hobgoblins, and so forth. Also yeah, orc ferocity is pretty bamf. I actually house-ruled it so that half-orcs received the same ferocity.
Also, I am saddened that my probabilities are now on a page break and unlikely to be seen by anyone. I put way too much effort into that.
Don't worry, I read it, and it's quite good. Here, I'll quote it, since I respect your work and efforts.
33.3% standing (>=1 hp)
16.7% staggered
50% unconscious and bleeding out - from the blow, not the FORT saveAdding in the fort save, which has an statistical average of 35% to pass, you get:
11.7% standing (>=1 hp)
5.8% staggered
17.5% unconscious
65% deadBy contrast, a 5STR halfling has a (much easier to calculate, so I'll do it in one step):
36.7% standing (>=1 hp)
9.2% staggered
9.2% unconscious
45% dead
So everyone can see that kikanaide contributed greatly to our conversation. ^-^
Don't worry, I read it, and it's quite good. Here, I'll quote it, since I respect your work and efforts.
Mighty kind of you.
I would like to return to my original point: a STR 5 character is so incredibly weak that he/she is unable to actually break skin with a nice, sharp, pointy dagger. Ashiel has validly brought up that there is a fair chance he/she could kill a character with bad fort saves, through a coup de grace, but considering that any damage done is nonlethal damage, I maintain he/she did not pierce skin and instead crushed a windpipe or something. Also, I'd probably houserule that nonlethal damage from a coup de grace doesn't require a fort save, but that's a separate conversation (especially since I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that in PFS).
The point being: this STR 5 character is rather hopelessly crippled in combat (arguably the main thing that STR is for). A CHR 5 character SHOULD be similarly hopelessly crippled in social interaction (arguably the main thing that CHR is for).
Unfortunately, there is no way for the rules to "require" that players make the jump to actually playing a CHR 5 character as socially crippled. Instead, the rules can only maintain that there are penalties to skills, etc (penalties that objectively shrink to nothing next to the STR penalties in combat). That jump has to be made by deciding to play the "role" of the character you created. Just as I can't play a STR 5 halfling and draw blood with a dagger (a hard rule), many players feel you shouldn't play a CHR 5 character and participate in witty conversations (a soft rule).
Just in case anyone is curious:
Arithmetic Mean (or average) = sum of all possible results divided by the number of results (e.g. d6 (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 21/6 = 3.5)
Median = the middle number between the lowest half of results from the highest (e.g. 1,1,1,2,5,10,1001 = 2 (the result between the lowest half of 1,1,1 and the highest 5,10,1001)). If there are an even number of samples there is no true median but is most commonly calculated as the mean of the middle two numbers (e.g. 1,1,2,5,10,1001 = (5+2)/2 = 3.5)
Mode = the most common number among a given number of samples (e.g. I roll a d6 eight times and get the following results: 1,2,3,3,4,5,5,5 = 5 with three occurences) Mode is almost completely useless for gaming purposes unless you're playing Godlike.
SJ
|
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?
Anyone interested in reading about the nature of "Role-Playing" and its connection to war games and table-top role-playing games should give The Fantasy Role-Playing Game by Daniel MacKay (McFarland & Company, Inc; ISBN: 0-7864-0815-4) a read. It's a scholarly work that covers the rise of table-top RPGs, how role-playing affects individuals (and their societies), and its overall structure (cultural, formal, social, and aesthetic). There's even some talk about MetaNarratives, The Forgotten Realms, and some of Jonathan Tweet's early work on Everyway (which, in 2011, is a little dated, but relevant nonetheless).
The ideas behind mechanics vs. play are covered throughout the book, with an eye toward the sphere of drama being the model for play, but maintaining that mechanics are a necessity to facilitate the factor of choice in a setting devoid of a fixed script (what we would normally call "railroading").
It's a dry read, honestly, but worth its weight in gold for those out there interested in the nature of the game beyond the mechanics of a particular system - discussing everything from why we play, how we play, and how playing rewards us as individuals.
Anyone interested in reading about the nature of "Role-Playing" and its connection to war games and table-top role-playing games should give The Fantasy Role-Playing Game by Daniel MacKay (McFarland & Company, Inc; ISBN: 0-7864-0815-4) a read. It's a scholarly work that covers the rise of table-top RPGs, how role-playing affects individuals (and their societies), and its overall structure (cultural, formal, social, and aesthetic). There's even some talk about MetaNarratives, The Forgotten Realms, and some of Jonathan Tweet's early work on Everyway (which, in 2011, is a little dated, but relevant nonetheless).
The ideas behind mechanics vs. play are covered throughout the book, with an eye toward the sphere of drama being the model for play, but maintaining that mechanics are a necessity to facilitate the factor of choice in a setting devoid of a fixed script (what we would normally call "railroading").
It's a dry read, honestly, but worth its weight in gold for those out there interested in the nature of the game beyond the mechanics of a particular system - discussing everything from why we play, how we play, and how playing rewards us as individuals.
Thank you Jason. I will make a note of this book, and see if I can find it at my local bookstore, or maybe online or something. I would love to read something like that.
I would like to return to my original point: a STR 5 character is so incredibly weak that he/she is unable to actually break skin with a nice, sharp, pointy dagger. Ashiel has validly brought up that there is a fair chance he/she could kill a character with bad fort saves, through a coup de grace, but considering that any damage done is nonlethal damage, I maintain he/she did not pierce skin and instead crushed a windpipe or something. Also, I'd probably houserule that nonlethal damage from a coup de grace doesn't require a fort save, but that's a separate conversation (especially since I wouldn't feel comfortable saying that in PFS).
My thing is, I look at things from a point of realism, and I also look at things from the point that the designers created when they created the system. The only thing that has changed about commoners from 3E to Pathfinder is they have an average of +1 Hp (from 2 to 3). The average Fortitude save is +0 by the human standard (commoners have +0, and 10-11 con = 0). Exceptions exist, of course, but this would be the most common Fortitude save of your average person.
Likewise, if I found someone asleep/unconscious, I could in real life, attempt to kill them with a single blow that would normally be nonlethal. Perhaps stomping on their throat, or slamming both of my hands across their temples while they were defenseless, or similar. I'd only be dealing 2d3 nonlethal damage as part of my "commoner coup de grace", but I could kill them.
Nonlethal damage is lethal enough that it can knock you unconscious or cause you to pass out from pain. By default a halfling with a sharp blade might not cause enough actual damage or blood loss to be lethal in its own right, but given a chance to put that blade where he or she wants it, and it could be quite lethal.
There's nothing that says nonlethal damage doesn't break the skin. Merely that the amount of punishment isn't sufficient enough to be lethal to the target under normal conditions. If you make a light cut across my arm, it's going to hurt, but unless it gets infected or something, it's definitely not going to threaten my life. Make a slightly deeper light cut across my neck and I may not be around to complain about it.
It's arguable that the nonlethal damage would apply to the saving throw DC, since the DC is based on the weapon's damage and doesn't specify a difference, but as not to start another argument that would fall off topic, I just defaulted to 10 which would be there regardless. Personally, I think if a rogue was to coup de grace you with an unarmed strike while getting sneak attack off, then it should probably kill you just the same. Just if you did make your fortitude save, then you avoided the "deathblow" aspect and it still just hurt like a...y'know. :P
However, I think that's all I have on that subject right now. Thanks for listening.
Just in case anyone is curious:
Arithmetic Mean (or average) = sum of all possible results divided by the number of results (e.g. d6 (1+2+3+4+5+6)/6 = 21/6 = 3.5)
I forget the theorum, but there is one. Any regular series of integers (where the number progress in increments of 1 from LOW to HIGH) can be averaged by simply averaging the low and high.
As an interesting aside... You can actually get the average by averaging the reciprocals in the dataset.
That is, given 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1 and 6 are reciprocals, 2 and 5, 3 and 4. All of them add up to the same number (1 + 6 = 7, 2 + 5 = 7, 3 + 4 = 7). If we had 1d6+1, we'd have 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. 7+2=9, 6+3=9, 5+4=9.
If the set has an odd number of numbers, then the average is the median number. For example, 1, 2, 3. 1+3=4, 4/2 = 2. Or, 1+2+3/3 = 6/3 = 2.
If anyone ever asks you to add up all the numbers from 1 to a 100, you can short circuit it. :) The same holds true for those numbers, each reciprocal pair will add up to 101 (99+2, 1+100, etc). You'll have 50 pairs of those (50+51 to 100+1), so the value is 50*101 = 5050.
@Ashiel and myself
I can't believe we argued for that long without realizing that the halfling in question would only do 1 point of nonlethal damage on a coup de grace.
Rolled twice and summed, d3-3 + d3-3 = 0 -> 1 point of nonlethal. Not 1 point doubled to 2.
@Ashiel - Whether blood is shed or not is not really the issue. I'll grant you it came up repeatedly in my example. The point is really that however laughable a 5 STR character is in melee, that's how laughable a 5 CHR character should be in parley.
|
@Ashiel and myself
I can't believe we argued for that long without realizing that the halfling in question would only do 1 point of nonlethal damage on a coup de grace.Rolled twice and summed, d3-3 + d3-3 = 0 -> 1 point of nonlethal. Not 1 point doubled to 2.
@Ashiel - Whether blood is shed or not is not really the issue. I'll grant you it came up repeatedly in my example. The point is really that however laughable a 5 STR character is in melee, that's how laughable a 5 CHR character should be in parley.
+1
@Ashiel and myself
I can't believe we argued for that long without realizing that the halfling in question would only do 1 point of nonlethal damage on a coup de grace.Rolled twice and summed, d3-3 + d3-3 = 0 -> 1 point of nonlethal. Not 1 point doubled to 2.
@Ashiel - Whether blood is shed or not is not really the issue. I'll grant you it came up repeatedly in my example. The point is really that however laughable a 5 STR character is in melee, that's how laughable a 5 CHR character should be in parley.
The same halfling with 5 Str, 20 Dex, Weapon Finesse and +10d6 sneak attack is going to hurt plenty. Probably slice the head off most people. Of course, that's because more is going into it than just Str, but that's the point.
If you have a Cha 5 character trying to make his Diplomacy checks and such, he's going to suck at it. His highest bet is a 16, which means he tends to piss people off really good when he tries to influence their attitude, and most people aren't down with his requests unless they're pretty minor.
However, with feats, abilities, and levels (read: skill points) he can overcome this drawback. Would our low Str halfling rogue ever be as awesome as a rogue that also had a 16 Strength, with everything else being equal? No, of course not. Does that mean it's hopeless? No it doesn't.
Likewise, your example takes a tiny weapon, on a small character, with the worst attainable strength score, and then pushes it all onto being the strength score. That's like having a 5 Charisma and then wearing peasant clothes while talking to a noble (-2 penalty) who happens to be elven, and you're wearing an "Elves are stupid" on your t-shirt (another -2, probably). That's basically a -8 or "I could take 10 and make people hate me". It's not, however, entirely due to the Charisma.
For the Strength 5halfling, someone mentioned that 1 in 7 halflings would have a str of 5 but actually, 1 in 7 would have a 7 in any stat, 1 in 6 would have that in strength, so 1 in 42 would have a strength of 5 on average.
Likewise, your example takes a tiny weapon, on a small character, with the worst attainable strength score, and then pushes it all onto being the strength score. That's like having a 5 Charisma and then wearing peasant clothes while talking to a noble (-2 penalty) who happens to be elven, and you're wearing an "Elves are stupid" on your t-shirt (another -2, probably). That's basically a -8 or "I could take 10 and make people hate me". It's not, however, entirely due to the Charisma.
Actually, the halfling/small part came from that being the only race I thought of off the top of my head that had a strength penalty (allowing a 5 STR char in point buy). The choice of dagger just makes it so it's always nonlethal (really, the halfling's other options aren't much better, just less clean). Agreed, it's an absurd example.
But frankly, a 5 (or even 7) STR character (at any size) is laughable in solo melee without choosing one particular CLASS (rogue) and at least three FEATS (weapon finesse, combat expertise, improved feint), and will always be mechanically disadvantaged by being unable to wear armor.
Whereas the 5 CHR character can be, strictly mechanically, less laughable by just using skill points (or a trait to pick up diplomacy as a class skill), and maybe, just maybe, 1 feat (skill focus: diplomacy). Does this seem balanced?
Therein lies the heart of the matter - CHR simply isn't critical, mechanically, to a melee character. Not even as critical as STR is to a caster (you have to carry gear). Perhaps this is something that should be addressed in some way (+1 for capping skills at their corresponding stats). But the point is that charisma supposedly "measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
Many of those things CAN'T have a roll associated, they have to be roleplayed. And if you choose to ignore your base score and just go with whatever you want to do, a lot of people consider that kind of like ignoring carrying capacity, or damage penalties. It's not exactly the same - because you CAN'T create good rules for roleplaying that wouldn't just be fodder for rules lawyers and restrictive for everyone else. But it's fairly silly, nonetheless. If you take a penalty to mechanics-heavy abilities like STR to boost something like CHR, I think you might be justified in feeling like you ought to get something back.
Many of those things CAN'T have a roll associated, they have to be roleplayed. And if you choose to ignore your base score and just go with whatever you want to do, a lot of people consider that kind of like ignoring carrying capacity, or damage penalties. It's not exactly the same - because you CAN'T create good rules for roleplaying that wouldn't just be fodder for rules lawyers and restrictive for everyone else. But it's fairly silly, nonetheless. If you take a penalty to mechanics-heavy abilities like STR to boost something like CHR, I think you might be justified in feeling like you ought to get something back.
This reminds me of the court case where that guy tried to sue McDonalds for him being overweight. I think the defense went something like this:
"Mr. *name*, could you please explain how the employees of McDonalds ran outside, grabbed you, drug you kicking and screaming into the establishment. Then, please explain in detail how they proceeded to mug you for the money in your wallet while force-feeding you the meal, and then giving you exact change."
Charisma is a "soft" stat. It is the fifth wheel of the six stats (odd sounding, I know). It exists as a powerful "other" stat that has powerful class abilities keyed to it, while also passively applying to several stats. Most classes that don't have the need for Charisma outside of the skills will have no reason to push much into the stat; while those that do enjoy powerful benefits (such as Divine Grace, Smite, or Spellcasting benefits) as well as a naturally higher skill set.
Now some might not think that it's fair that Charisma doesn't have as many drawbacks as Strength, nor does it have as many boons as Strength, except to its specific classes. That's OK. If your class can comfortably dump Charisma, and still reach a level of social grace that you desire, then that is fine. If not, well you probably have a reason you're not dumping Charisma.
Is it fair that a Paladin has to make a choice between Charisma and other scores, while the Fighter can mostly ignore it? Yeah, I think so. Last I checked, the Paladin gets to use that Charisma on attack rolls when he smites, gets additional uses out of all his class features allowing him to heal as a swift action each turn, and get a huge bonus to saving throws outside of normal options, while also benefiting from spellcasting.
=========
In short, your problem is just that you don't like how Charisma works. I can't comment on that, as I'm not you. It works fine for some of us, however, and we don't mind that Charisma has little impact (positive or negative) on most characters, while being vital to others.
In short, your problem is just that you don't like how Charisma works. I can't comment on that, as I'm not you. It works fine for some of us, however, and we don't mind that Charisma has little impact (positive or negative) on most characters, while being vital to others.
That's not quite fair. Partly true, but not entirely fair. Heck, I don't even like the fact that Diplomacy is a SKILL instead of just being roleplayed, but that's an argument for...never, really.
This argument started from the idea that people ought to at least roleplay (i.e. "play the role of") having a low CHR. According to the core rulebook, "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." Mechanics-wise, it has extremely little impact, and for many classes can be offset quite easily with a few skillpoints. I don't like that, but that's secondary.
The opinion that actually started this whole spiel goes something like "I've completely offset my initial stat dump through the mechanics of the game, so I don't have to actually think about what a low CHR might manifest as - my character has passable Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate rolls, after all. What part of human interaction doesn't fall under those? I think I'll just ignore this score." I would argue that's not roleplaying. Figuring out who your character is and how, exactly, your character displays his low CHR while rocking at those checks - and having fun with the people around the table while you do it - that's roleplaying.
Edit: CHR being a "soft" stat is fine with me - I just feel like people should look at it once in a while and try to fit it into their actions at the table. It messes with my suspension of disbelief if a CHR 5 or 7 character is the best diplomancer, storyteller, and all-around people pleaser at the table. In the same way, I imagine, your suspension of disbelief would be threatened if a halfling fighter with a dagger and 5 STR was doing the most damage in the party.
It messes with my suspension of belief when the INT 26 wizard is being portrayed by an INT 12 person. Oh wait the way I play no one notices how impossible this is to act out, nvm.
So you are awesome. We bow to you oh god of awesome awesomeness...please keep playing in that awesome way of awesomely disregarding any statistics so that you can play what you want and still awesomely kick ass...
I'm not sure this helped explain how you roleplay a INT 26... in fact I'm not sure it was constructive at all.
|
|
You play an int 26 wizard by assuming what a smart person would do or say. There are no rules on the accurate portrayal of certain intelligences in the game world. AS lon as you realize that your character is way way smarter than you, and play him accordingly, with som GM help, all is well..
And no, my post wasn't really constructive, it's just that the way you play the game, to me, is cheating. You completely disregard your character's abilities and play the character however the hell you want. IMO, that is wrong.
You play an int 26 wizard by assuming what a smart person would do or say. There are no rules on the accurate portrayal of certain intelligences in the game world. AS lon as you realize that your character is way way smarter than you, and play him accordingly, with som GM help, all is well..
And no, my post wasn't really constructive, it's just that the way you play the game, to me, is cheating. You completely disregard your character's abilities and play the character however the hell you want. IMO, that is wrong.
Why is it wrong? I come up with a concept and stick with it, sometimes I need certain abilities to make that work, and sometimes the class with those abilities doesn't require the stats that would portray my character.
You can either pick relevant stats or working thematic abilities, I get to have my cake and eat it too.
|
|
Because that would be like expecting a guy with down syndrome to be an eloquent ladies man. Not possible. If you are playing a stupid, uncharismatic guy who can punch through a brick wall, do not play him like a suave ladies man because he is not that. If you want to play a suave ladies man, play him stat-wise as much as roleplay-wise.
It messes with my suspension of belief when the INT 26 wizard is being portrayed by an INT 12 person. Oh wait the way I play no one notices how impossible this is to act out, nvm.
1) And I can't break down doors or swing a two-handed sword effectively. I'm used to characters being able to do more than the person at the table.
2) I somehow expect that if your character got hit by an INT drain and dropped down to 1 or 2, you'd keep playing him identically. Or is it your contention that your INT doesn't affect your thinking ability between 3 and 26?
The hard mechanics CAN'T strictly dictate roleplaying actions - it'd be like trying to write good laws instead of good rules. But guidelines are there, by their descriptions in the first chapter and by common sense. Arguing that the "mechanics" don't interfere with roles means that you can ignore your stats for playing is a little like arguing that since the mechanics don't state you can't act while dead, you can ignore it.
On the topic of high Intelligence (and by extension, Wisdom), the way that is very easily simulated is to give more time to the player to figure things out, even in combat and/or to allow the other players to give more input but have the high Intelligence/Wisdom character make the final decision in character.
On the topic of low Charisma (or any other mental stat), sure you can offset some of the penalties with skill points or even some feats. So do you actually do this with your characters or do you actually ignore the low scores and put your points into other skills instead?
...
You can either pick relevant stats or working thematic abilities, I get to have my cake and eat it too.
Yep, that's exactly right. Bugger verisimilitude, logic or common sense. You get to have your cake and eat it too.
Which is all you really want, apparently.
That's the whole issue in a nutshell right there. Thanks for making it so clear.
Yep, that's exactly right. Bugger verisimilitude, logic or common sense. You get to have your cake and eat it too.
Which is all you really want, apparently.
That's the whole issue in a nutshell right there. Thanks for making it so clear.
+1
.
..
...
....
.....
The end?
::
OT: I too think that stats should play their part in dictating play.
I like restrictions/challenges/misc.
It/they promote(s) creativity.
With extreme prejudice.
::
::
I come up with a concept and stick with it, sometimes I need certain abilities to make that work, and sometimes the class with those abilities doesn't require the stats that would portray my character.
To be a little less trite, sit down and read your own sentence. The first half is not true - you come up with a character concept, and then the moment that portraying the concept accurately on the character sheet would result in a disadvantage, you drop the concept in favor of mechanical advantage. You just admitted that you're freely ignoring the stats that would "portray your character" simply because the class "doesn't require" them. That's not "sticking with it."
Do you people listen to yourselves? I swear the reason this is such a huge issue is merely because you all want to argue and nothing more. Let me elaborate:
Some of you want to force others to play the way you want them to play. I and others believe this is wrong. I personally feel it is the player who decides how to play. Ultimately the developers of the game decided NOT to have direct guidelines on role playing your stats. Why? Because everyone's going to disagree on where the limits are. They knew this. They made the decision to leave it up to the individual players. So no rules or guidelines were made. That is the DEFAULT we are left with... No restrictions! Most of us put some manner of house rule into effect, myself included.
Everyone uses different house rules. So tell me this! Why can't you leave it alone? You have stated your ideas of where you feel the house rule should be. Right or wrong, they are still house rules. Why do you try to force your ideas down the throat of everyone else? You have to realize nobody is going to change their mind. To be fair BOTH sides are guilty of argument for the sake of seeing ourselves type. The only conclusion I can draw is that this isn't about stats at all... It is an argument for argument's sake.
The only conclusion I can draw is that this isn't about stats at all... It is an argument for argument's sake.
I thought the ridiculous digression with the halfling would have made that clear by now.
|
... Ultimately the developers of the game decided NOT to have direct guidelines on role playing your stats...
LOL!
There's not even guidelines now?
I guess I must have imagined that whole bit under 'Generating a Character' right at the start of the core book... Not to mention the descriptions of what the various Ability Scores represent in the very next section... :)
I guess I must have imagined that whole bit under 'Generating a Character' right at the start of the core book... Not to mention the descriptions of what the various Ability Scores represent in the very next section... :)
Glad to know I'm not the only one who read that. I've been quoting it for quite a while in this thread...
I played a Cha20 oracle like an unlikable prick. Am I doing it wrong?
Do you people listen to yourselves? ...
Everyone uses different house rules... It is an argument for argument's sake.
+ at least 1. Although the thread has been entertaining to read.
... Ultimately the developers of the game decided NOT to have direct guidelines on role playing your stats...LOL!
There's not even guidelines now?
I guess I must have imagined that whole bit under 'Generating a Character' right at the start of the core book... Not to mention the descriptions of what the various Ability Scores represent in the very next section... :)
Well you got me to reread that section and I failed to see any guideline on how to role play any stat. Since the main issue with me is how I play my character I will ignore the physical stats because well it should be obvious how you act isn't measured by your Str score. It does say what each mental stat measures... That's it. No where does it say someone with an Int score of 7 should be played as a moron. The measurements are correct each stat has a modifier directly tied into the skill system. So they didn't lie, Int does measure how well a person 'learns and reasons' it directly refers to the fact that they start with fewer skills and have a harder time hitting the DCs of Int based tests. That clearly refers to the skills and game mechanics. Does it also refer to how you should play such a character? I see no evidence it does. As you can clearly see no role play guidelines were given.
There you got me to defend that ONE word in my post. Does that mean you agree with the rest of it?
I played a Cha20 oracle like an unlikable prick. Am I doing it wrong?
Nope. In fact, socially adept people are the best at pissing others off.
You can always play down your character's abilities. Your stats say your character CAN be a social butterfly - your concept says he chooses not to.
I played a Cha20 oracle like an unlikable prick. Am I doing it wrong?Nope. In fact, socially adept people are the best at pissing others off.
You can always play down your character's abilities. Your stats say your character CAN be a social butterfly - your concept says he chooses not to.
Charisma does not mean "likeable." It means that people react to your presence in a favorable manner. That's why "intimidate" is a cha based skill.
If you have a 20 cha prick and the GM is playing NPCs as avoiding or ignoring you, HE is doing it wrong. They may not LIKE you, but you will influence them.
@Min2007:
Can't say I agree with the rest of the post. I have trouble with the logic of saying "I and others believe this is wrong" as a way to chastise others for "force[ing] your ideas down the throat of everyone else."
If you have a 20 cha prick and the GM is playing NPCs as avoiding or ignoring you, HE is doing it wrong. They may not LIKE you, but you will influence them.
Well, perhaps avoiding is acceptable, depending on what you mean by it.
|
|
... As you can clearly see no role play guidelines were given...
This is hilarious! :)
So... just to make sure I've got your position correct here, you're saying that the section in the book describing how you imagine a character, and then stat-out game mechanics to represent that character, 'clearly' gives no guidelines on how to role play that character?
ROFL!
I now actually want to see a game system with no guidelines at all on how to role-play your stats...
These are your character's statistics: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, and Bob. We're not going to tell you what they represent, or what type of character would have them... but feel free to go ahead and assign some numbers to them... They do some mechanical things in the game system, but in no way should you take that as these statistics representing your character in any way - we wouldn't want to impose our totalitarian concepts of 'role playing' on you in a 'role playing game', after all - where's the fun in that? :)
Reading comprehension is not a strong suite around here. I am going to waste some time and explain Ashiel's point of view:
There is no MECHANICAL guideline on how you should play your stats. There is only descriptions.
Example: There is no sidebar telling you that at Int7 you no longer master grammar. Nor at Cha6 you no longer have the ability to appeal to the opposite gender.
What we DO have is a truckload of vague explanations. And after that... well, I guess The Dude says it best.
And as humans we are willing to kill each other over opinions and perceptions. Like what "The one God"'s name is, what his message is, and if he likes pork or not.
Reading comprehension is not a strong suite around here. I am going to waste some time and explain Ashiel's point of view:
There is no MECHANICAL guideline on how you should play your stats. There is only descriptions.
Example: There is no sidebar telling you that at Int7 you no longer master grammar. Nor at Cha6 you no longer have the ability to appeal to the opposite gender.
What we DO have is a truckload of vague explanations. And after that... well, I guess The Dude says it best.
And as humans we are willing to kill each other over opinions and perceptions. Like what "The one God"'s name is, what his message is, and if he likes pork or not.
And since lack of reading comprehension seems to be a ubiquitous problem, I'll waste some time and explain why Ashiel's point of view is being rebutted:
The fact that there is no specific guideline for cha penalties when there ARE specific guidelines for physical attributes is being DELIBERATELY EXPLOITED by people to metagame munchkin their characters in spite of the widely accepted view by a large portion of the gaming community (and I hope it's a MAJORITY) that the lack of those guidelines does not mean that there should be a lack of consequences for munchkining in that fashion.
@Min2007:
Can't say I agree with the rest of the post. I have trouble with the logic of saying "I and others believe this is wrong" as a way to chastise others for "force[ing] your ideas down the throat of everyone else."
"I and others believe this is wrong" this is a statement of our opinion as clearly expressed... It bothers you that we don't agree with you?!
"force[ing] your ideas down the throat of everyone else." Are these words too strong? You are presenting your side as if everyone has to do things your way. Some on my side have done the same. I have always maintained that we are all free to work it out individually, even if my opinion is that it is wrong. Can't I express my opinion? If I have offended you by suggesting you are trying to force an issue then perhaps I am getting the wrong impression from the posts I read so far.
But I think it illustrates my main point: "This is an argument for arguments sake." If all we are doing is nit picking the others posts for tiny words or phrases you can attack... then what else can it be called?
Reading comprehension is not a strong suite around here. I am going to waste some time and explain Ashiel's point of view:
There is no MECHANICAL guideline on how you should play your stats. There is only descriptions.
Example: There is no sidebar telling you that at Int7 you no longer master grammar. Nor at Cha6 you no longer have the ability to appeal to the opposite gender.
What we DO have is a truckload of vague explanations. And after that... well, I guess The Dude says it best.
And as humans we are willing to kill each other over opinions and perceptions. Like what "The one God"'s name is, what his message is, and if he likes pork or not.
And since lack of reading comprehension seems to be a ubiquitous problem, I'll waste some time and explain why Ashiel's point of view is being rebutted:
The fact that there is no specific guideline for cha penalties when there ARE specific guidelines for physical attributes is being DELIBERATELY EXPLOITED by people to metagame munchkin their characters in spite of the widely accepted view by a large portion of the gaming community (and I hope it's a MAJORITY) that the lack of those guidelines does not mean that there should be a lack of consequences for munchkining in that fashion.
Within 4 minutes: Opinions.
Dumping a stat gives you penalties. Some classes can live with these penalties. A fighter can live with a low Cha and Int. A wizard can live with a low Str and Non-primary mental stats. A bard can live with low Str and Wis.
Are the stats equally important/weighted even in a theoretical vacuum? No, not in the slightest. Never been that way. Not since 1e. In fact, I wonder if it is intentionally engineered to BE a dump stat, as weak as it is.
Do I care? Nope. Within 4 levels of play, we have completely ignored charisma between players anyway, in favor of a more organic and immersion-focused style of play, where ragging on someone for "not playing his stats right" is pretty much equal to driving the game to a screeching halt to rules lawyer Magic Circle Against Evil. It's almost like the ungratefulness a cleric invariably suffers. At lv1-3 it's all "Oh, we are ever so grateful for the graces of whomever your deity is. We shall surely donate at the next temple!", and around 7 that has gone to "Why the heck did you cast <blast or flavor spell> instead of <buff, healing or something good for the entire party>, you cheap douche?!"
Do I care? Nope. Within 4 levels of play, we have completely ignored charisma between players anyway, in favor of a more organic and immersion-focused style of play
And again we get to the core of the debate.
Some people completely ignore charisma. Some of us feel that this is essentially cheating since in a point buy system you can trade your "ignored" charisma for an attribute you actually care about.
The example I addressed earlier was dumping charisma to gain intelligence and then using the skills gained in intelligence to buy skill points in diplomacy and bluff and then claiming that all social interaction was covered under diplomacy and bluff and therefore there was no charisma "penalty" from the stat dumping.
Some of those on this thread think that's extremely clever and brilliant character construction.
Some of those on this thread think that's deliberate exploitation of a rules gap to such a degree that it is effectively the same thing as cheating.
I'm in the second group.
I don't see the two groups agreeing on this.
Ultimately, I was arguing that the idea, in fact the definition, of roleplaying is to play a role. The character sheet is a reflection of that role.
If you can roleplay in such a way that your character sheet is an accurate reflection of your character, especially if you can do it with many different and memorable characters, I hope no one would argue that you're not a great roleplayer.
If you ignore whatever you don't like on your character sheet "because a stat has no mechanical benefit," I don't think you can argue that you are attempting to play the character on your sheet. You could be playing a different character, and playing it well.
But particularly in an OP environment, where the total amount of "coolness" that a character has is limited for balance between individuals, and very tightly so, things are a little bit different. If you maximize combat mechanically, and then just handwave it by saying "the class doesn't need those stats, and stats shouldn't limit my roleplaying," that's...not exactly supported by the clear intent of that first chapter. Unfortunately, and what I think baboon and I have had experience with, is that sentence seems to come in right ahead of ones that mean "if you actually play your real character, the one on your sheet, you're an idiot and suck at this game. Look at how much my character lives in combat and yours doesn't. And I'm just as good as you at talking, because I ignore my stats. So there." And they say it to people who are some of the best and most fun roleplayers out there.
|
Thanks for all the debate, there have been some interesting illustrations of different stat values. The halfling with a strength of 5 being unable to inflict damage with a dagger was particularly illustrative of what a 5 represents in terms of combat.
I also accept the retort that with the appropriate training the same halfling could do a significant ammount of damage. The frequency at which such low stats exist will also be higher than most people suggested as there are also age penalties to consider. As I pointed out a good way back, the average 53 year old human has physical stats of 7 (this being a 5 for halflings and gnomes who are old in relation to strength).
Point buy just doesn't allow for the storybook style hero, but as others pointed out, most of them are loners and cover a number of roles. If you have a character with a high charisma in the party to do the talking is it that important? Yes if you want to play a rounded character, No if you want to play yourself with penalties to skill rolls the other characters player will make.
On a side note, I was thinking about the languages and the link to intelligence. I suppose most cultures that educate people to speak multiple languages encourage the development of the lingustics skill. Those with a bonus language from intelligence are just that much cleverer as they don't have to...