|
wis·dom
[wiz-duhm]
–noun1. the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight.
I could point to the fact that this description seems a lot like the concept of "reason" to me and any synonym dictionary in the world, and thus that bombing anything and anyone isn't having a lot of judgment or discernment, but discussing semantics when it's clear you are just interpretating stats in a different way is only pointing to a dead end.
Just to say that I'm a lot more inclined to see characters who sometimes doesn't act in accordance to a high mental stat than the opposite, since being a walking computer doesn't make you less prone to do stupid things, and in the opposite if you've got a 7 charisma, you'd better invest ranks in a social skill if you don't want to be "the weird or bland-looking guy" in the first 30 seconds of any interaction - sheer roleplaying not included in this judgment. I've got no problem with low stats not being included in the roleplay if the player suffered the loss of skill points in the stat - especially because the low stat is already a mechanical disadvantage. It shows a character trying in his universe to overcome it's natural disadvantages.
Ignoring a mechanical bonus in terms of roleplaying isn't the same as ignoring a malus. If you want to look cool, invest some points in charisma and diplomacy/intimidation. If you want to hit like an enraged bull and be the perfect handsome man, it's nice, your character is interesting. Now to lower something else, throw two more sets of d6 or play in 25 points buy ?
And I'm not talking about you personally, just as a general rule of thumb. I've got a player at my table with a 5 Int and 5 Wis half-ogre barbarian, and he plays this like a charm : we lose neurons when he speaks, and he doesn't do the caricatural "THOG HITS THINGS", he instead invents new words, misinterprets existing ones and sticks with them. The funny part is the 13 Charisma he got, thus being at the same time a natural leader for stupid monstruous humanoids, and the most charismatic character from the group. Since he put no ranks in charisma stats other than intimidation (which he never used actively even one time in 10 levels), we have to work in concert in any NPC discussion. At the same time we've got a LE/LG Vivisectionist-Master Chymist, he's intelligent, skilled but totally crazy. High Int, low Wis.
Don't misinterpret my words, I'm not saying you're doing it wrong. But IMHO, mental stats like charisma aren't just dump stats. Like any other, Charisma determines how successful you could be in a social environment. If you dump it, don't play the nice playboy. If you want a playboy, put points in charisma or skills. You're gonna have less points elsewhere, and it's the game, being able to roleplay your playboy could save you or help you someday, it's an advantage like any other and it isn't free.
Thus :
Actions generally speak louder then words. Most my likable low charisma characters are kind of like if some dirty hobo ran up while you were being mugged and with a swift flick of his switchblade disarmed and subsequently judo dropped the bad guys. Good first impressions and all that, even if your real first impression was a dirty hobo with no dignity you can provide a better impression after, a secondary impression that challenges the notions set by the first.
Usually how I do it.
+1 to this way of playing. Roleplaying is naturally more important than mental stats since it is an active way to influence the world, while mental stats are a passive way to positively or negatively influence the outcome of your actions. But on the opposite side, it's not because your acts help you look better that it should be as easy to do social situation as someone who invested in this domain.
I'm not saying or suggesting that you play the party face. The party face in my campaign is the fighter who has a lower Charisma than the Paladin. I'm wondering how you play a likable character with low social scores.Actions generally speak louder then words. Most my likable low charisma characters are kind of like if some dirty hobo ran up while you were being mugged and with a swift flick of his switchblade disarmed and subsequently judo dropped the bad guys. Good first impressions and all that, even if your real first impression was a dirty hobo with no dignity you can provide a better impression after, a secondary impression that challenges the notions set by the first.
Usually how I do it.
That may make them appreciate your actions but will they react to you more favorably more often? I would argue that they wouldn't. No matter how well you role play a situation, no matter how awesome your character (or even the player) thinks he looked doing it, if your Charisma is low then you are probably not likable. That doesn't mean that your help would not be appreciated or even asked for again. Someone with a higher Charisma wouldn't have to work as hard as often to impress someone.
.
..
...
....
.....
RE: Charisma/charisma based skills/high-low charisma.
Active and passive!
Active and passive.
::
..it throbs with rightness..
"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."
If you are being honest then it isn't the game system you should be upset with. It is the game master's fault for ignoring the mechanical benefit of all the stats. If that game master starts actually using charisma stat checks and social skill rolls in his game in an important way then those people "who are some of the best and most fun roleplayers out there" will have a blast in a dynamic social situation while the hack-n-slash player will get bored. Why? Because despite how well the guy can talk IRL his character's stats will throw a lead weight around everything he tries to do. If the player is as bad as you paint him he will probably quit the group on his own. But it's hardly fair to criticize the hack-n-slash player if you have a hack-n-slash game master who doesn't want to be bothered with social encounters.
That may make them appreciate your actions but will they react to you more favorably more often? I would argue that they wouldn't. No matter how well you role play a situation, no matter how awesome your character (or even the player) thinks he looked doing it, if your Charisma is low then you are probably not likable. That doesn't mean that your help would not be appreciated or even asked for again. Someone with a higher Charisma wouldn't have to work as hard as often to impress someone.
I'm not saying or suggesting that you play the party face. The party face in my campaign is the fighter who has a lower Charisma than the Paladin. I'm wondering how you play a likable character with low social scores.Actions generally speak louder then words. Most my likable low charisma characters are kind of like if some dirty hobo ran up while you were being mugged and with a swift flick of his switchblade disarmed and subsequently judo dropped the bad guys. Good first impressions and all that, even if your real first impression was a dirty hobo with no dignity you can provide a better impression after, a secondary impression that challenges the notions set by the first.
Usually how I do it.
Depends on the mindset of the observer. I played a paladin who disliked the party bard (cha18), for being lazy, self-centered and physically weak enough hardly be anything but a liability. His social graces and limited party boosting abilities be damned. While my character DID like the barbarian (cha8) who had a honest hardworking mindset, was reliable in combat, and never shied away from pulling his weight.
|
I wanted to thank this thread, it inspired me. I'm creating a foolys cleric. Wis 7, Cha 18 (16 with a human +2), built using a 15 point buy. He'll get by with his charisma, and focus on channeling, since he doesn't understand the whole faith thing as opposed to belief he'll worship a more combat oriented diety and believe in conversion by the sword. While he'll be subpar with no spellcasting, his selective channeling and high diplomacy will make him a useful enough character. I'll also put lots of ranks in UMD that way he'll get some spellcasting.
The thing is, because of the broad and intangible nature of Charisma, you can roleplay virtually any character however you want, and still be roleplaying your Charisma. By definition, Charisma is something of a divine gift or unseen power that exists in a person. For example, many claim Hitler had amazing Charisma, and his heated words and emotion stirred an entire nation. However, another guy acting in the same way might just be viewed as crazy and overly excited.
Even those arguing about Charisma in other threads have to resort to saying that it isn't how you "look, dress, or act" but that it's "personal magnetism, presence" and so forth. Characters either have that naturally, or they don't. It's really that simple.
...
Being good at something despite the drawback doesn't mean you've negated it. Offset does not equal ignoring it. Offset != Ignore_It. If you have a -1 to hit with ranged weapons and someone casts bless to give you a +1, you have offset the penalty, but the penalty is still there, holding you back slightly (5% slightly, actually).
Likewise, not I, nor anyone else (that I know of) have suggested that you can ignore it. You might be able to become good despite it, but not ignore it. If it takes your 7 Charisma fighter until 2nd level to reach +0 Diplomacy, and 5th level to reach +4, it's obvious that the penalty isn't being ignored. Merely overcome. If compared to the bard in the group who has a +3 Cha, and the same ranks (5), and a class skill (+3), he's sitting a +11 compared to your +4. No, you don't suck at it but you're definitely not ignoring it.
+1
I think the people who have the biggest issue with dumping stats are the very game masters who are ignoring the mechanical side of those same stats in their own games. Why? Because not once have I ever seen a player dump a stat they thought was going to matter mechanically in the game they were joining, NOT Cha, Int, Str, or any other stat.
|
|
I'd just like to say (particularly since we're talking to devs with these posts) that I'm in the Pathfinder forums precisely BECAUSE Pathfinder isn't stock-designed for that level of "heroism." No matter how much I try to like it, it just isn't fun for me to win without danger. That's why I played 0-level characters in 2nd edition, it's why I've played an awful lot of 3d6 roll-them-in-order characters, and it's why I've almost never enjoyed starting above 1st level. And why I kinda miss d4 hp, and rolling them at 1st level.
The great part of any tabletop RPG is that you can do what you (and your group) want with it. I'm not going to cast judgements on the way you play, but I will speak up when you say "the vast bulk" aren't getting what they want - I am.
+2
@Min2007:
Perhaps you haven't sat at a table someone who claimed he was being "picked on" or got upset when a GM involved CHA in any way. The guy who asked why the score should ever come up, when he was so awesome at "roleplaying," by which he meant "saying whatever I should say to win."
It's very possible that the posters on the other side of this argument have never been that guy, and I'll take the blame for interpreting them that way. I'm sorry, guys and gals, if I was unfair.
Let me go on the record as saying that you DON'T have to play a CHA 5 character any particular way to be "right." He doesn't HAVE to smell, he doesn't HAVE to _____. But I think you're missing something if it doesn't even factor into the way you're playing him.
I ask that you read chapter 1, where it talks about what ability scores mean. Build the character you want to play. No one is or should be forcing you to put a 20 in STR and a 16 in DEX and CON. Yes, those stats will make you a better fighter than someone who chooses to be well-rounded. That's fine. But if you do specialize to that extent, play the character you built.
But even if you ignore that, don't tell a person who built the character they wanted to play, based on text in the book, that their character sucks because it isn't as mechanically good as yours, or say that makes them a bad roleplayer. Because I've heard that said, by speakers clearly enjoying their "superiority," and I will go to my grave knowing that IS the wrong kind of fun.
The thing is, because of the broad and intangible nature of Charisma, you can roleplay virtually any character however you want, and still be roleplaying your Charisma. By definition, Charisma is something of a divine gift or unseen power that exists in a person. For example, many claim Hitler had amazing Charisma, and his heated words and emotion stirred an entire nation. However, another guy acting in the same way might just be viewed as crazy and overly excited.
Even those arguing about Charisma in other threads have to resort to saying that it isn't how you "look, dress, or act" but that it's "personal magnetism, presence" and so forth. Characters either have that naturally, or they don't. It's really that simple.
...
Being good at something despite the drawback doesn't mean you've negated it. Offset does not equal ignoring it. Offset != Ignore_It. If you have a -1 to hit with ranged weapons and someone casts bless to give you a +1, you have offset the penalty, but the penalty is still there, holding you back slightly (5% slightly, actually).
Likewise, not I, nor anyone else (that I know of) have suggested that you can ignore it. You might be able to become good despite it, but not ignore it. If it takes your 7 Charisma fighter until 2nd level to reach +0 Diplomacy, and 5th level to reach +4, it's obvious that the penalty isn't being ignored. Merely overcome. If compared to the bard in the group who has a +3 Cha, and the same ranks (5), and a class skill (+3), he's sitting a +11 compared to your +4. No, you don't suck at it but you're definitely not ignoring it.
+1
I think the people who have the biggest issue with dumping stats are the very game masters who are ignoring the mechanical side of those same stats in their own games. Why? Because not once have I ever seen a player dump a stat they thought was going to matter mechanically in the game they were joining, NOT Cha, Int, Str, or any other stat.
I'm dumping con and wisdom on my cavalier tank in favor of int and charisma in a game starting next week. I also boosted my int over my dex, even though I am taking combat reflexes, because I needed the extra language to fit the backstory I had written, even though I expect that language to come up at most once over the course of the game. And this is using a 15 point buy, so its not like I'm getting insane stats out of this.
@Min2007:
Perhaps you haven't sat at a table someone who claimed he was being "picked on" or got upset when a GM involved CHA in any way. The guy who asked why the score should ever come up, when he was so awesome at "roleplaying," by which he meant "saying whatever I should say to win."It's very possible that the posters on the other side of this argument have never been that guy, and I'll take the blame for interpreting them that way. I'm sorry, guys and gals, if I was unfair.
I have gladly never encountered such a player.
Let me go on the record as saying that you DON'T have to play a CHA 5 character any particular way to be "right." He doesn't HAVE to smell, he doesn't HAVE to _____. But I think you're missing something if it doesn't even factor into the way you're playing him.
I agree with you here. But remember it is the player missing out on a fun time role playing. It isn't the game masters job to lay a heavy handed smack down on the player for refusing to join in the fun.
I ask that you read chapter 1, where it talks about what ability scores mean. But if you do specialize to that extent, play the character you built.But even if you ignore that, don't tell a person who built the character they wanted to play, based on text in the book, that their character sucks because it isn't as mechanically good as yours, or say that makes them a bad roleplayer. Because I've heard that said, by speakers clearly enjoying their "superiority," and I will go to my grave knowing that IS the wrong kind of fun.
I have read chapter one on concepts and ability scores. And I DO have people define them either for good or bad modifiers. But I realize this is my house rule. By RAW or RAI I would be wrong to punish them any more than the rules already do for buying down a stat. Even if they refuse to define them the modifiers are still there and will hamper that character in the encounters and skill challenges where that stat matters.
People have called you a bad role player for not maxing out your stats? I guess I have been blessed in players then because that sort of behavior seems alien to me. I would have stern words with any player who ridiculed another over design choices in either direction. The game is about having fun.
|
|
I'm dumping con and wisdom on my cavalier tank in favor of int and charisma in a game starting next week. I also boosted my int over my dex, even though I am taking combat reflexes, because I needed the extra language to fit the backstory I had written, even though I expect that language to come up at most once over the course of the game. And this is using a 15 point buy, so its not like I'm getting insane stats out of this.
I'm going to play a hobo drunk peaceful monk in a future campaign. Quiggon vow of peace drunken master of mountain's lotus, big fatass, like a Buddha or Hotei only with more vomit and ass-kicking. Dumping dexterity and pumping charisma (yes, even for a vomit hobo, because despite all this, the character is impressive and has natural magnetism).
IMHO, as long as your character is playable and didn't got horrible stats in vital arrays for your character's role, being "underoptimized", or "not optimized" is a bit of a moot point. The major difficulty for my DM is to make encounters a challenge because we're 7 hard-optimized combat classes (including one Magus). If you and your fellow players are all in the array of "can do his job well" without being necessarily the 20 strength lvl.1 THF Schwarzenegger, your encounters will be as difficult as if you were incredible at your job, because they will be toned down (or at least not toned up). If you start your campaign as level 1 children with a big baddie, it is doubtful your encounter will be as high a CR of when you'll be some years later as level 3 young adults - yet it will be as deadly. Same principle if you can accord yourself beforehand when rolling characters and speaking with the DM.
I'm dumping con and wisdom on my cavalier tank in favor of int and charisma in a game starting next week. I also boosted my int over my dex, even though I am taking combat reflexes, because I needed the extra language to fit the backstory I had written, even though I expect that language to come up at most once over the course of the game. And this is using a 15 point buy, so its not like I'm getting insane stats out of this.I'm going to play a hobo drunk peaceful monk in a future campaign. Quiggon vow of peace drunken master of mountain's lotus, big fatass, like a Buddha or Hotei only with more vomit and ass-kicking. Dumping dexterity and pumping charisma (yes, even for a vomit hobo, because despite all this, the character is impressive and has natural magnetism).
IMHO, as long as your character is playable and didn't got horrible stats in vital arrays for your character's role, being "underoptimized", or "not optimized" is a bit of a moot point. The major difficulty for my DM is to make encounters a challenge because we're 7 hard-optimized combat classes (including one Magus). If you and your fellow players are all in the array of "can do his job well" without being necessarily the 20 strength lvl.1 THF Schwarzenegger, your encounters will be as difficult as if you were incredible at your job, because they will be toned down (or at least not toned up). If you start your campaign as level 1 children with a big baddie, it is doubtful your encounter will be as high a CR of when you'll be some years later as level 3 young adults - yet it will be as deadly. Same principle if you can accord yourself beforehand when rolling characters and speaking with the DM.
This is exactly how I feel. You don't need to optimize your stats. You can feel free to add flavor. The game is designed with less optimal characters in mind, so you make the game easier on the GM overall.
That may make them appreciate your actions but will they react to you more favorably more often? I would argue that they wouldn't. No matter how well you role play a situation, no matter how awesome your character (or even the player) thinks he looked doing it, if your Charisma is low then you are probably not likable. That doesn't mean that your help would not be appreciated or even asked for again. Someone with a higher Charisma wouldn't have to work as hard as often to impress someone.
I'm not saying or suggesting that you play the party face. The party face in my campaign is the fighter who has a lower Charisma than the Paladin. I'm wondering how you play a likable character with low social scores.Actions generally speak louder then words. Most my likable low charisma characters are kind of like if some dirty hobo ran up while you were being mugged and with a swift flick of his switchblade disarmed and subsequently judo dropped the bad guys. Good first impressions and all that, even if your real first impression was a dirty hobo with no dignity you can provide a better impression after, a secondary impression that challenges the notions set by the first.
Usually how I do it.
Dm has to think of a way to justify continuing to distrust the character, a high charisma in the campaigns im in doesnt affect peoples starting attitudes. Your still a stranger and should not be trusted, especially in a world where there are charasmatic assassains running around. High CHA just means you actions to establish trust can be simpler then the low cha guy, so if i want a low cha character to be charasmatic I just try harder but make it seem like I didnt have to do much.
@Min
I wrote a big response, but I am too tired to keep this up. I'm just going to say that I believe it is both RAW and RAI for charisma to measure what it says it measures. It is both RAW and RAI for ability scores to be his "raw talents and prowess."
If a player describes his CHR 5 1st-level character as being a natural leader and talking about how people hang onto his every word, I think it is appropriate to point out that he's clearly not describing the character on his sheet. By RAW, it seems hard to imagine someone possessing these qualities, when their "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" are so low when measured against any meaningful object of comparison.
Taking such a player aside and explaining it is probably the GM's job, and while it doesn't need to be a "smack down," it is one of a handful of potentially harmful behaviors that come up in organized play and need to be handled for the enjoyment of all at the table. It's not the fun part of a GM's job, and it shouldn't be, but dealing with this sort of problem is what separates great GMs and good ones.
|
|
Final stats on 15 point buy Human Cleric
14 Str
10 Dex
12 Con
12 Int
8 Wis
18 Cha
His Goddess is Pharasma with the death and repose domains as well as the undead subdomain.
First level feats are selective channel and Extra Channel.
He'll be Lawful Neutral with the ability to channel positive energy.
Depending on the number of undead faced (say Carrion crown), I would as I leveled up get Improved channel, turn undead, and channel smite, or if I'm not facing many undead, (say Rise of the Runelords) I will go weapon focus, dazzling display (since my intimidate will be high), shatter defenses.
I would also look into a couple of custom feats/PrC if its a home game.
|
|
Final stats on 15 point buy Human Cleric
14 Str
10 Dex
12 Con
12 Int
8 Wis
18 ChaHis Goddess is Pharasma with the death and repose domains as well as the undead subdomain.
This doesn't look like a playable cleric at all to me if your major class ability, spellcasting, is totally dumped from the beginning...
Part of the fun coming from the game is also to feel useful in fight and roleplay. Or else, you'll just stay behind everyone and feel like a waste of space, XP pump or a gimp - except obviously if your fellow players want to do the same kind of almost-broken character for the fun in a team of heroic good-for-nothing.I know the reason why you wanted a cleric at first was for the concept, and there is no way to "play wrong" if everyone has fun ; but from what you explained for your character before, you would be better served with a paladin, a divine sorcerer from the Pathfinder Database or even a house-ruled charisma inquisitor.
Final stats on 15 point buy Human Cleric
14 Str
10 Dex
12 Con
12 Int
8 Wis
18 ChaHis Goddess is Pharasma with the death and repose domains as well as the undead subdomain.
First level feats are selective channel and Extra Channel.
He'll be Lawful Neutral with the ability to channel positive energy.
Depending on the number of undead faced (say Carrion crown), I would as I leveled up get Improved channel, turn undead, and channel smite, or if I'm not facing many undead, (say Rise of the Runelords) I will go weapon focus, dazzling display (since my intimidate will be high), shatter defenses.
I would also look into a couple of custom feats/PrC if its a home game.
If someone came to the table with this kind of character, my first reaction would be "Are you trolling?", second would be "You wrote Oracle of Life wrong."
Final stats on 15 point buy Human Cleric
14 Str
10 Dex
12 Con
12 Int
8 Wis
18 ChaHis Goddess is Pharasma with the death and repose domains as well as the undead subdomain.
First level feats are selective channel and Extra Channel.
He'll be Lawful Neutral with the ability to channel positive energy.
Depending on the number of undead faced (say Carrion crown), I would as I leveled up get Improved channel, turn undead, and channel smite, or if I'm not facing many undead, (say Rise of the Runelords) I will go weapon focus, dazzling display (since my intimidate will be high), shatter defenses.
I would also look into a couple of custom feats/PrC if its a home game.
If someone came to the table with this kind of character, my first reaction would be "Are you aware that without Wisdom you can't cast any Cleric spells?", and if he is aware, second would be "You know it will be difficult to do, but I think it's an interesting concept and I would like to see how it plays out."
See, I think that's the difference, as a DM I make sure my players know what is mechanically more productive, but encourage them to play the concept they want. If I end up with a group of all the same class, because that's what they all wanted to play, then as the DM I take that into account when running my game.
As long as it is built by the rules and they have a good in character reason as to why/how they will RP an 8 Wis 18 Chr cleric, then it works and I look forward to seeing it.
Final stats on 15 point buy Human Cleric
14 Str
10 Dex
12 Con
12 Int
8 Wis
18 ChaHis Goddess is Pharasma with the death and repose domains as well as the undead subdomain.
First level feats are selective channel and Extra Channel.
He'll be Lawful Neutral with the ability to channel positive energy.
Depending on the number of undead faced (say Carrion crown), I would as I leveled up get Improved channel, turn undead, and channel smite, or if I'm not facing many undead, (say Rise of the Runelords) I will go weapon focus, dazzling display (since my intimidate will be high), shatter defenses.
I would also look into a couple of custom feats/PrC if its a home game.
If someone came to the table with this kind of character, my first reaction would be "Are you aware that without Wisdom you can't cast any Cleric spells?", and if he is aware, second would be "You know it will be difficult to do, but I think it's an interesting concept and I would like to see how it plays out."
See, I think that's the difference, as a DM I make sure my players know what is mechanically more productive, but encourage them to play the concept they want. If I end up with a group of all the same class, because that's what they all wanted to play, then as the DM I take that into account when running my game.
As long as it is built by the rules and they have a good in character reason as to why/how they will RP an 8 Wis 18 Chr cleric, then it works and I look forward to seeing it.
If someone came with that character I'd tell them that by lowering Charisma just by one they can keep the same concept and have an 11 wisdom, the minimum to at least cast 1st level spells, or drop it 2 for a 13 wisdom. Then you can still have the charisma heavy cleric but be able to cast cleric spells and help the party at lower levels when a cure or channel from a cleric can be the difference between a difficult fight and a TPK.
@Kikanaide
We are reading the same section... I sit here completely frustrated with you. How can you be reading something that isn't there. I believe you sincerely see what you say you see. But "measurements" and "raw talent and prowess" have little to do with how a person acts or behaves. Then you said "describes his CHR 5 1st-level character as being a natural leader and talking about how people hang onto his every word". Then it hit me. I know why you are not understanding me. You are getting Concept confused with Personality. "people hang onto his every word"! That's it in a nutshell. This ISN'T a personality it's a concept. You are describing how other people act NOT your character. In that respect you are correct. If you want a 'Concept' where other people hang on your every word then you BETTER have the stats and skills to back it up or your concept will fail.
BUT I am talking about how your character acts NOT how effective he is at what he does. Being a Natural Leader can be a personality trait. It just means that you have your character give directions and orders to others naturally, your character steps up and takes charge. It's just how he acts. It doesn't mean others listen to you! With a Cha of 5 many NPCs may need more incentive to follow you then just hearing you give direction.
A 7 is low enough that I would expect some significant role playing consequences, and some mechanical disadvantages, but it is a solidly playable stat.
I agree with you that a 7 should have consequences and those consequences should have an affect on roleplay. However, at the same time, I'm rarely if ever going to tell a character he can't attempt to roleplay a certain way due to a give stat. The penalty should, and will, affect probability of success, however it should not impede possibility. Granted, there are reasonable limits, but that is what DC's are for. Nonetheless, an uncharismatic individual can still attempt to be charismatic. If a character is forbidden from even attempting something due to statistical impediments, then the game takes a fatalistic course that only serves to stymie heroism with little to no benefit to the parameters of roleplay.
I have a 7 Dexterity. I have no business getting anywhere near a dungeon.
Armor's good, but I dumped everything but Int and Cha and I took the Noncombatant and Slow flaws.
|
|
If someone came with that character I'd tell them that by lowering Charisma just by one they can keep the same concept and have an 11 wisdom, the minimum to at least cast 1st level spells, or drop it 2 for a 13 wisdom. Then you can still have the charisma heavy cleric but be able to cast cleric spells and help the party at lower levels when a cure or channel from a cleric can be the difference between a difficult fight and a TPK.
And I'd tell you I know that, I'm not functionally retarded, I know how point buy works, but by giving him an 11 -13 wis means that he's got above average wisdom which is not foolish which is not what I'm going for, also this character is while not optimized not useless, he can channel energy 9 times at level one while almost never having to worry about healing enemies meaning that he can do exactly "help the party at lower levels when a cure or channel from a cleric can be the difference between a difficult fight and a TPK" His channeling will only get stronger and if the party needs any particular cleric spell they can still get it as his high charisma means that his maxed UMD will make using scrolls and wands almost trivial, as well as his maxed diplomacy will mean he's actually better than almost every other cleric out there at winning souls over to the worship of pharasma, which is what a clerics main schtick is, not spellcasting. Also his decent physical stats and yes I'd put him in heavy armor with a heavy shield since he never needs a hand free means he's a decent melee contributor (not great, just decent, and the fact that he can channel 9 times and probably more once I boost Cha with magic items means he will actually have an easier time keeping the party health level decent.
I'd also probably try to custom build meta-channel feats that work like metamagic feats only by popping off more uses of channel in one shot.
DISCLAIMER: that eight wisdom is supposed to be a 7, danged finger slip.
@Min2007
Thank you for trusting me to be honest. That sentence is sincere, and not sarcastic (I sometimes hate the written word).
I can see your point of view as well. I could go so far as to say I agree with it.
I'm not sure it's the point of view being expressed by those that were in this argument before you got here, and I'm pretty sure it's not the point of view expressed by Shadow_of_death here (in the first page of this thread):
Sorry to disappoint, if I want to play the leader/representative of a civilized-ish barbarian tribe (gotta keep the peace with the local town and all) I'm not going to put a 14 in CHA to do it. If I want to play a cleric with anger issues that does stupid things because of it he'll still have a WIS of 18.
I don't see why a sheet full of mechanical rules should have any effect on my options for roleplay.
To me, the first example sounds like choosing a concept and then ignoring it because CHR is mechanically weak, which is why I picked on his post about "picking a concept and sticking with it" as hard as I did. It's quite possible that he means something different than I do when he says "concept," though.
I should note that I don't have a problem with the second example, because I never have had a problem with someone playing their character down, particularly if they have a RP reason (e.g. having "anger issues").
@LastKnightLeft and everyone else
I would love to play at a table with this cleric. Doesn't everyone always say clerics are ridiculously overpowered? And yes, he could bump his WIS up to 11 by dropping his CHR by 1 - but the 20 STR barbarian could bump his CHR up to 10 by dropping his STR by one, making himself no longer fugly, and yet it's pretty common to choose not to. And to look down, for some reason, on people who do.
|
|
If someone came to the table with this kind of character, my first reaction would be "Are you trolling?", second would be "You wrote Oracle of Life wrong."
And my response would be, no, I'm serious, I know he can't cast spells, but he's a damn good channeler and I'm trying something out. I think people here are too busy looking at what he can't do and not at what he can do.
More details, I'll use his favored class bonus for skill points. I'll max three skills diplomacy, UMD, intimidate, and My last skill point will be ysed to boost other skills, particularly heal and Know religion, but I wouldn't max those.
traits dangerously curious (fits both flavor wise and mechanically suits my needs) and natural born leader.
|
|
I know the reason why you wanted a cleric at first was for the concept, and there is no way to "play wrong" if everyone has fun ; but from what you explained for your character before, you would be better served with a paladin, a divine sorcerer from the Pathfinder Database or even a house-ruled charisma inquisitor.
no, I would not be better served, I made this because I like the idea of trying to be a foolish cleric, a foolish cleric meaning low wisdom which I know means no spellcasting. This is both a fun concept and a fun challenge to attempt to keep a character useful without using his main class ability, switching class means I'm neither playing the concept nor accepting the challenge.
|
|
as well as his maxed diplomacy will mean he's actually better than almost every other cleric out there at winning souls over to the worship of pharasma, which is what a clerics main schtick is, not spellcasting.
Nope, wrong. Clerics aren't preachers. Experts, commoners and adepts with knowledge (religion) And perform (oratory) are preachers. Clerics are soldiers of their god, willing to battle for their beliefs.
Nope, wrong. Clerics aren't preachers. Experts, commoners and adepts with knowledge (religion) And perform (oratory) are preachers. Clerics are soldiers of their god, willing to battle for their beliefs.
Find that in the CRB somewhere, did you?
In faith and the miracles of the divine, many find a greater purpose. Called to serve powers beyond most mortal understanding, all priests preach wonders and provide for the spiritual needs of their people. Clerics are more than mere priests, though; these emissaries of the divine work the will of their deities through strength of arms and the magic of their gods. Devoted to the tenets of the religions and philosophies that inspire them, these ecclesiastics quest to spread the knowledge and influence of their faith...
I see "more than mere priests" (meaning also they are priests). I see working will through strength of arms (he's got that covered) and magic (he channels, a little weak but definitely magic). He quests to spread the knowledge and influence of his faith, better than most clerics. I think he's fine.
Final stats on 15 point buy Human Cleric
14 Str
10 Dex
12 Con
12 Int
8 Wis
18 ChaHis Goddess is Pharasma with the death and repose domains as well as the undead subdomain.
First level feats are selective channel and Extra Channel.
He'll be Lawful Neutral with the ability to channel positive energy.
Depending on the number of undead faced (say Carrion crown), I would as I leveled up get Improved channel, turn undead, and channel smite, or if I'm not facing many undead, (say Rise of the Runelords) I will go weapon focus, dazzling display (since my intimidate will be high), shatter defenses.
I would also look into a couple of custom feats/PrC if its a home game.
I would allow this guy myself. Hell I wanna try something like it now :P
|
|
as well as his maxed diplomacy will mean he's actually better than almost every other cleric out there at winning souls over to the worship of pharasma, which is what a clerics main schtick is, not spellcasting.Nope, wrong. Clerics aren't preachers. Experts, commoners and adepts with knowledge (religion) And perform (oratory) are preachers. Clerics are soldiers of their god, willing to battle for their beliefs.
Which my character can and will do, but clerics aren't one or the other, they're both. A cleric is both a preacher and a soldier. Saying that he has no responsibility to convert a soul is saying that his god has no impact on peoples lives, If that's the case, there is no need for a cleric class at all, as a fighter can battle for their beliefs as well as anyone else.
I agree with you that a 7 should have consequences and those consequences should have an affect on roleplay. However, at the same time, I'm rarely if ever going to tell a character he can't attempt to roleplay a certain way due to a give stat. The penalty should, and will, affect probability of success, however it should not impede possibility. Granted, there are reasonable limits, but that is what DC's are for. Nonetheless, an uncharismatic individual can still attempt to be charismatic. If a character is forbidden from even attempting something due to statistical impediments, then the game takes a fatalistic course that only serves to stymie heroism with little to no benefit to the parameters of roleplay.
A 7 is low enough that I would expect some significant role playing consequences, and some mechanical disadvantages, but it is a solidly playable stat.
No argument there. What I have seen though is that when some players attempt this, they act it out in real life with whatever charisma and acting skills the PLAYER has, and all too often I see the GM say "Wow, amazing role-play. You succeed and here's some bonus XP to boot!" That's what I find so frustrating.
If I have a cha 5 dwarf attempting to be charismatic, I'm going to do my best to play it as a cha 5 dwarf, not a cha 18 elf. Meaning my role play is probably going to include an unintentional belch, maybe a stutter or stammer, probably some harsher language than is appropriate and more than likely a few inappropriate comments.
Cha 5 dwarf attempting to pick up the gnome barmaid:
"Harumph... well, <urp!> ... uh, oops, crap! sorry lassie, great ale you have here eh? Say... I was, um... er.. you know... sorta wondering if you and your great swollen melons would like to, heh... go for a little ride, if you know what I mean?"
See, that's a cha 5 dwarf trying to pick up a gnome chick. When a player role plays it like that, that's role playing. Not when they act out John Travolta or Rudolph Valentino.
|
|
I would allow this guy myself. Hell I wanna try something like it now :P
I know right, this will be my next character, now that I've statted him, and picked all relevant abilities, I just need to buy equipment.
By the way this guy can lay down an awesome smack once per day thanks to the undead subdomain, I get to hurt one guy while healing all my allies, and ignoring four other dudes, at level six I can do it twice, at level eight I can do it three times. So in a battle with five enemies I can Seriously pump out the healing while still damaging an enemy, I'll have leadership so I'll have a strong cohort thanks to my trait, hell it would fit thematically to have a cleric cohort, one I converted to worship of pharasma. I'm actually really excited to try this out.
|
|
This is both a fun concept and a fun challenge to attempt to keep a character useful without using his main class ability, switching class means I'm neither playing the concept nor accepting the challenge.
Yes, you're playing the roleplay-concept. Not the mechanics-concept, I agree. But it's not because you're called a "fighter" that you're a soldier, or because you're a soldier that you're a "fighter". Is it just to have the name "cleric" on the sheet and in roleplay ? Would a god even give you any powers if you have a wisdom so low ? If not, and you can only channel, aren't you just a dumb heretic and an insult to the cult/the god itself, and thus on the verge of inquisition ?
Again, I see nothing wrong in your way of playing this character if you and your friends are having fun at the table, since this is the essential. But you'd better have a solid roleplay to face the consequences of being what you are, and think about if after three levels it will still be fun to be the moving healing potion who can't even fight properly or cast vital spells. Fear your poisoned/drained/dead friends when these days come.So if you're in accord with fellow players and your DM, it will be cool for you, and I sincerely hope this character will remembered for your roleplay since it could be actually efficient at what you want it to be, and that you look to be really fond of the concept. If not, your kool koncept will only make you a waste of space. I'll never say it again, check with DM and the group to make sure you'll help and everyone will have fun, it is a roleplaying game but also a teamwork game.
By the way, to cast spells from a scroll, you need the appropriate wisdom value, or you have to simulate the value by a UMD check -15 and get at least the appropriate value as a result. So you need a 27 minimum on your base check to simulate a 12 wisdom and cast a 2nd level spell. Now to get the wands you need, again, talk to your DM beforehand so that magic wall-marts will help you a bit.
|
Still, if the GM is not having characters react to highly charismatic characters, he is, in fact, doing it "wrong." That's the very definition of what charisma is, and if that is not being portrayed in the game, then the GM needs to be coached.I can agree with that. I think my main disagreement is those that say negative Cha characters should be reacted to just as much as high Cha characters, only negatively. (And yeah, I'm usually quick to answer since I have little else to do in my off time here.)
Not to drag the over 700 post thread over here, but I agree with you about this point.
It isn't important that the distinction between -2 and +2 Charisma be punishing the -2 with negative consequences for being -2.
However it is important that the distinction exist, and that it is clearly better to be +4 better than a -2 when involved in social situations.
The difference between a -2 and a +2 should be the effective difference between a 10 and an 18.
If you view 10 as average, and +18 as one of the most charismatic people in existence, you should view a 7 and a 14 as someone noticeably less charismatic than average vs someone noticeably more charismatic
than average.
There is this belief that those of us who acknowledge negative charisma in the game want low charisma characters burned at the stake for not being charismatic.
In fact, they generally get overlooked in favor of higher charismatic characters. That isn't punishment, that is observation of the rules.
|
|
By the way, to cast spells from a scroll, you need the appropriate wisdom value, or you have to simulate the value by a UMD check -15 and get at least the appropriate value as a result. So you need a 27 minimum on your base check to simulate a 12 wisdom and cast a 2nd level spell. Now to get the wands you need, again, talk to your DM beforehand so that magic wall-marts will help you a bit.
Right, at level 1 I'll have a +9 to UMD meaning in order to cast i need to roll an 18-20, hard, but not impossible, by level 3 I can do it on a 16-20 if I haven't in any way improved my stats, if a wizard casts eagle's splendor or I have a wand of it ( You are right about magic marts making this guy better, but I like to assume they aren't there) I can do it on a much more reasonable 15-20. Not the best odds in heated combat, but definitely doable outside of combat. I also can use wizard scrolls up to second level with no check. and reliably hit the dc with one or two tries. Depending on how heavily I rely on UMD (I don't intend to, but hey some DMs do have magic marts) Skill focus UMD would make me reliably able to use divine 1st and second level scrolls as I'd have a +14 which means that I need to roll a 13 to emulate the score and an 8 to activate the scroll. That I believe is pretty good odds.
|
|
Dm has to think of a way to justify continuing to distrust the character, a high charisma in the campaigns im in doesnt affect peoples starting attitudes. Your still a stranger and should not be trusted, especially in a world where there are charasmatic assassains running around. High CHA just means you actions to establish trust can be simpler then the low cha guy, so if i want a low cha character to be charasmatic I just try harder but make it seem like I didnt have to do much.That may make them appreciate your actions but will they react to you more favorably more often? I would argue that they wouldn't. No matter how well you role play a situation, no matter how awesome your character (or even the player) thinks he looked doing it, if your Charisma is low then you are probably not likable. That doesn't mean that your help would not be appreciated or even asked for again. Someone with a higher Charisma wouldn't have to work as hard as often to impress someone.
I'm not saying or suggesting that you play the party face. The party face in my campaign is the fighter who has a lower Charisma than the Paladin. I'm wondering how you play a likable character with low social scores.Actions generally speak louder then words. Most my likable low charisma characters are kind of like if some dirty hobo ran up while you were being mugged and with a swift flick of his switchblade disarmed and subsequently judo dropped the bad guys. Good first impressions and all that, even if your real first impression was a dirty hobo with no dignity you can provide a better impression after, a secondary impression that challenges the notions set by the first.
Usually how I do it.
Because he is a hobo, with a switch-blade, that can drop people with a judo move.
Rambo 1. "In Vietnam I was driving thanks worth millions, here they don't let me even park a car."
People don't became "friend for life" simply because one of them has stopped a mugging attempt against the other.
It give a foot in, but if the helping guy is a drunkard that prefer begging to working and hasn't any social grace (cha 5) most people will pay him a meal, give him some money and hope never to need him again.
Sorry to disappoint, if I want to play the leader/representative of a civilized-ish barbarian tribe (gotta keep the peace with the local town and all) I'm not going to put a 14 in CHA to do it. If I want to play a cleric with anger issues that does stupid things because of it he'll still have a WIS of 18.
I don't see why a sheet full of mechanical rules should have any effect on my options for roleplay.
To me, the first example sounds like choosing a concept and then ignoring it because CHR is mechanically weak, which is why I picked on his post about "picking a concept and sticking with it" as hard as I did. It's quite possible that he means something different than I do when he says "concept," though.
I should note that I don't have a problem with the second example, because I never have had a problem with someone playing their character down, particularly if they have a RP reason (e.g. having "anger issues").
Sounds like a double standard, "yeah you can play that 18 like a 7, cool concept" and "No you have a 7 and everyone will do their best to remind you of that"
Not to drag the over 700 post thread over here, but I agree with you about this point.
It isn't important that the distinction between -2 and +2 Charisma be punishing the -2 with negative consequences for being -2.
However it is important that the distinction exist, and that it is clearly better to be +4 better than a -2 when involved in social situations.
The difference between a -2 and a +2 should be the effective difference between a 10 and an 18.
If you view 10 as average, and +18 as one of the most charismatic people in existence, you should view a 7 and a 14 as someone noticeably less charismatic than average vs someone noticeably more charismatic
than average.There is this belief that those of us who acknowledge negative charisma in the game want low charisma characters burned at the stake for not being charismatic.
In fact, they generally get overlooked in favor of higher charismatic characters. That isn't punishment, that is observation of the rules.
Except most are advocating that no matter how hard I work to make the game world perceive my character as charismatic (despite his score) it will fail because they all somehow innately know how much to like me.
Save the king: "thanks now piss off"
Cha 18 saves an injured bird: "Someone get the king! this mans a hero!"
If I save someone in a dazzling skillful display of action that would have killed most I expect to be treated as such regardless of CHA score. I also expect to be given information about the hazards and such to make it easier if I am a high CHA character (people willing to trust me with the details and such)
The end result should be the same, one guy just had to work harder for it. He should still be able to act like a cocky robin hood at the end when everyone is cheering.
Because he is a hobo, with a switch-blade, that can drop people with a judo move.
Rambo 1. "In Vietnam I was driving thanks worth millions, here they don't let me even park a car."
People don't became "friend...
If he was a hobo with a higher cha that just couldn't afford to care for his personal hygiene and begged because work was hard to come by and was desperate for money, then why would he be treated any different? To a stranger he appears the same as the other guy only somehow more likeable, best friends for life all of a sudden.
The end result should be the same, one guy just had to work harder for it. He should still be able to act like a cocky robin hood at the end when everyone is cheering.
Shadow, I'm not sure exactly what you think you are communicating, but I think you may not be communicating what you think you are communicating.
In post after post from you I read things that sound like I want my character to be able to act and be treated like he has 18 cha no matter what his actual charisma is. Or something like If I want to role play my cha 5 character like he has awesome cha, then that's "role playing" and you should just give me the mechanical penalties required by the RAW.
Now maybe that's not what you are trying to say. But that's what I keep reading.
And when I read that, my immediate reaction is "that's not how I see role paying. Role playing is playing the character in front of you, meaning if your character has a cha of 5, you should PLAY HIM like he has a cha of 5." Meaning that a lot of the stuff you keep talking about being able to do, are things that in my view of role playing your character would not even be trying to attempt.
I think that's the difference. It's like the dwarf example I used above. Sure he'll try to pick up the barmaid babe, but he will do it like he has a cha of 5, and he will visibly and obviously SUCK at it.
Does that make any sense?
Shadow, I'm not sure exactly what you think you are communicating, but I think you may not be communicating what you think you are communicating.
In post after post from you I read things that sound like I want my character to be able to act and be treated like he has 18 cha no matter what his actual charisma is. Or something like If I want to role play my cha 5 character like he has awesome cha, then that's "role playing" and you should just give me the mechanical penalties required by the RAW.
Now maybe that's not what you are trying to say. But that's what I keep reading.
And when I read that, my immediate reaction is "that's not how I see role paying. Role playing is playing the character in front of you, meaning if your character has a cha of 5, you should PLAY HIM like he has a cha of 5." Meaning that a lot of the stuff you keep talking about being able to do, are things that in my view of role playing your character would not even be trying to attempt.
I think that's the difference. It's like the dwarf example I used above. Sure he'll try to pick up the barmaid babe, but he will do it like he has a cha of 5, and he will visibly and obviously SUCK at it.
Does that make any sense?
I see... makes sense, I'll try to convey it better, because that is not what I am trying to say.
Lets take that dwarf for instance and his CHA 14 human friend. They each have a barmaid there looking at.
Being CHA 14 the human flirts a little maybe buys her a drink and he is pretty much in.
The CHA 5 dwarf, flirts a little, buys her a drink, asks her about her day, helps her serve drinks during the busy hour. And then she seems more comfortable and he can move in for the kill.
Would you be okay with that scenario?
Edit: after you confirm or deny I will move on to my actual point.
|
|
Sounds like a double standard, "yeah you can play that 18 like a 7, cool concept" and "No you have a 7 and everyone will do their best to remind you of that"
When you play your 18 like a 7, you're giving you a kind of "handicap".
When you play your 7 like a 18, you're just trying to munchkin the system.You want an advantage - or at least, no disadvantage ? Then pay for it, or when you're at it, just make yourself 20/19/20/20/20/20 because you're "heroic but a bit slow".
Make your character in the sheet like you intend him to play. And if you have to put a high characteristic in something that doesn't look like your character, like the previous exemple of terrorist bomber, either :
- search another class more fitted,
- ignore/adapt your ability bonus in your roleplay,
- make your major ability suck so that crunch and roleplay follow (the previous cleric without spell), but speak with your DM and fellow players so you'll make sure the game will adapt and you'll have fun playing with it.
In the barbarian case, you could say "I'm not putting charisma so he is the chief"... well, yes, you are, or don't complain of the consequences. Or it could be that his entire people here puts more value in strength than charisma, and thus, even your charismatic friends will be called sissies if they have no muscle = an exemple of roleplay adapting to concept. Or your chief will not last long, because a guy a bit less jerkass than him will come and naturally take his place someday when the followers will be bored of following the naturally horrible guy. Or make him take the feat to add strength to intimidation as his 1st level feat.
5 Charisma is supposed to be a big unsufferable/weird/socially inapt/hideous guy stat, if you don't want to look like this, put more points in it from the beginning. Your acts can overcome your stats, but being the village saviour won't make you bed more women just because. Having low charisma is a easy way for a DM to make your life hard when trying anything social, based on confiance, looks or your global likability. ("You" being a general assumption, I precise.)
When you play your 18 like a 7, you're giving you a kind of "handicap".
When you play your 7 like a 18, you're just trying to munchkin the system.
Again double standard.
It is okay to suck if your actually good, it is not okay to be good if you actually suck.
very definition of double standard
|
|
When you play your 18 like a 7, you're giving you a kind of "handicap".
When you play your 7 like a 18, you're just trying to munchkin the system.Again double standard.
It is okay to suck if your actually good, it is not okay to be good if you actually suck.
very definition of double standard
The guy who sucks while being good in stats isn't better anywhere else because of it.
If I want to play an intelligent fighter, I don't put 7 in intelligence and roleplay my own wits just because I can. Same thing for charisma.|
|
When you play your 18 like a 7, you're giving you a kind of "handicap".
When you play your 7 like a 18, you're just trying to munchkin the system.Again double standard.
It is okay to suck if your actually good, it is not okay to be good if you actually suck.
very definition of double standard
I thought a double standard was when the same rules don't apply to the different people, as in If your low cha character couldn't be played like a affable humorous guy, but mine could because I'm disabled, I.E. there are two sets of standards. That isn't a double standard as hes applying the same rules to all comers.
not trying to say who's right or wrong on the issue, just trying to understand what you mean by double standard.
See my last post to you, it is a sufficient reply to this as well. A double standard is never ever okay.