]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.
Well he isn't. your just looking at the wrong rule.
Player A you must roleplay your stats, player B do whatever you want. Each gets a different version of the rules
Edit: if CHA 18 had to act like CHA 18 then they would both be playing by the "act your stats rule" since he doesn't have to then only he doesn't have to follow this rule. Hence 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
I'll get back to your other post in a second. This is another one that sounds like "I want to be able to have my cha 7 character act and be treated like he has cha 18."
This isn't a double standard. Because while it is possible for a man with a str of 18 to ACT as though he has a str of 7, it is NOT possible for a man with a str of 7 to ACT like he has a str of 18, not without some sort of magical or sleight of hand to make people think the str 7 man is performing str 18 tasks.
Your other post requires a bit more response and I have to make a phone call...
I'll get back to your other post in a second. This is another one that sounds like "I want to be able to have my cha 7 character act and be treated like he has cha 18."This isn't a double standard. Because while it is possible for a man with a str of 18 to ACT as though he has a str of 7, it is NOT possible for a man with a str of 7 to ACT like he has a str of 18, not without some sort of magical or sleight of hand to make people think the str 7 man is performing str 18 tasks.
Your other post requires a bit more response and I have to make a phone call...
He can only act it until he turns the guy he swung his hammer at into a red mist. All of a sudden your character isn't following his concept.
And by act, I don't mean your str 18 trying to fool people I mean your STR 18 but your characters concept is a 90 pound weakling.
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
Stated like that, it might look like a double standard.
If you instead look at:
1) Is the player trying to gain an advantage unavailable to other players?
or
2) Is the player trying to game the system for his own advantage?
Then you'll arrive at your quote without it being a double standard.
He can only act it until he turns the guy he swung his hammer at into a red mist. All of a sudden your character isn't following his concept.
And by act, I don't mean your str 18 trying to fool people I mean your STR 18 but your characters concept is a 90 pound weakling.
Similarly, the CHR20 that enjoys acting like a horse's rear can instead pull out some serious diplomacy when he wants to. The STR18 guy doesn't have to turn people into red mists with a hammer - he could (for instance) do nonlethal damage, dropping his attack rating to within what a weakling could do and not run the risk of killing people.
I'm not sure if PF has a mechanic for this, but in older versions of D&D you could also "pull your punches," just like in real life, taking your strength bonus out. Else the STR 18 guy wouldn't be able to pick up an egg without splattering it everywhere.
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
Stated like that, it might look like a double standard.
If you instead look at:
1) Is the player trying to gain an advantage unavailable to other players?
or
2) Is the player trying to game the system for his own advantage?Then you'll arrive at your quote without it being a double standard.
I find it is hard to stick with a certain character if you act like a gruff a hole in combat but a gentleman outside of it. That is not a misrepresentation of stats that is a player showing up without a concept. Which I do not allow at my table.
Other then that, what kind of advantage are you talking about?
Similarly, the CHR20 that enjoys acting like a horse's rear can instead pull out some serious diplomacy when he wants to. The STR18 guy doesn't have to turn people into red mists with a hammer - he could (for instance) do nonlethal damage, dropping his attack rating to within what a weakling could do and not run the risk of killing people.
I'm not sure if PF has a mechanic for this, but in older versions of D&D you could also "pull your punches," just like in real life, taking your strength bonus out. Else the STR 18 guy wouldn't be able to pick up an egg without splattering it everywhere.
Swords cant opt for non-lethal damage, and I don't know about strength dropping, I think that would also lower to hit if you could even do it.
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.
OK, So a cha 14 human and a cha 5 dwarf are trying to get the barmaid into the sack. Let's say the GM decides that this is a rather loose and easy barmaid and she's got round heels, so he sets the DC at 15 for a diplomacy check.
Let's say that the dwarf and human are both level 2, and both have diplomacy as a class skill (probably an uncommon thing, but I'm trying to be as generous as possible here). They both have pumped two ranks into that skill and both have taken traits that provide another +2. Now the dwarf with cha of 5 has a diplomacy modifier of (-3 + 2 + 2 + 3) or a total of +4. The human has a diplomacy modifier of (+2 +2 +2 +3) or +9.
To beat the barmaid's DC and get her rocking back on her rounded heels, the human needs to roll a 6 (a 75% chance of success). The dwarf needs to roll an 11 (a 50% chance).
But, that's not all, since both are trying to win over the barmaid, the dwarf not only needs to beat the DC, he will need also to beat the diplomacy roll of the human. That means that no matter what the human rolls, the dwarf has to beat it by 6 (because on a tie, the higher modifier to the skill will win). If the human rolls anything higher than a 14, the dwarf literally cannot win. If the dwarf rolls anything less than a six, the human cannot lose. So the dwarf is already at a huge disadvantage.
Now, let's say the dwarf helps the barmaid out a bit, and the GM gives a modifier to the roll of a +2. Now that makes the odds a bit more even, unless the human decides to up the ante himself, which if he wants the barmaid, he will probably do.
So, could the dwarf win out in the end? Well, sure, if he rolls a 20 and the human rolls a 1.
But the odds are that 2 out of 3 times the dwarf will be sucking down suds on a stool while the human is doing acrobatics with the swollen melons.
Swords cant opt for non-lethal damage, and I don't know about strength dropping, I think that would also lower to hit if you could even do it.
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.
There doesn't appear to be a "pull your punches" rule in the PRD, but I would be surprised if a GM wouldn't let you (and yes, I expect it would drop his to hit as well).
But seriously - can a STR 18 character pick up an egg when he wants to, instead of crushing it to a pulp or throwing it into the heavens? Yes. Can a CHR 18 character be a jerk? Yes. Can a STR 5 character pick up a 1000 lb horse off his friend...no.
This isn't a double standard. One character is trying to play outside his player's abilities. The other is choosing not to use his character's abilities to the fullest. One is fine, the other is not.
Swords cant opt for non-lethal damage, and I don't know about strength dropping, I think that would also lower to hit if you could even do it.
Similarly, the CHR20 that enjoys acting like a horse's rear can instead pull out some serious diplomacy when he wants to. The STR18 guy doesn't have to turn people into red mists with a hammer - he could (for instance) do nonlethal damage, dropping his attack rating to within what a weakling could do and not run the risk of killing people.
I'm not sure if PF has a mechanic for this, but in older versions of D&D you could also "pull your punches," just like in real life, taking your strength bonus out. Else the STR 18 guy wouldn't be able to pick up an egg without splattering it everywhere.
If a player said "My fighter is using the flat of his sword and not using his strength on this attack" I'd say "Fine."
I find it is hard to stick with a certain character if you act like a gruff a hole in combat but a gentleman outside of it. That is not a misrepresentation of stats that is a player showing up without a concept. Which I do not allow at my table.
Other then that, what kind of advantage are you talking about?
I'm not sure I suggested that course of action. I replied that a guy with a CHR 20 could certain act like an a-hole. The example someone gave of House was perfect.
Even so, someone who feels "battle fever" a bit and is less eloquent during combat than outside of it seems like a perfectly reasonable concept. I've certainly known basketball players that pull a bit of Jekyll/Hyde action on the court.
Mostly, the low CHR is going to make itself felt through the mechanics - you're going to find that your low CHR character can't do diplomacy and whatnot as well as others can. What I believe baboon is talking about now is when a player (as opposed to a character) makes such a convincing speech or argument that the GM is silly and doesn't make him roll a Diplomacy check (i.e. feel the mechanical penalty of his low CHR). Thus he has accomplished the advantage of a high CHR (gaining the advantage of passing a diplomacy check) while being completely combat-optimized. That would be an unfair advantage.
I'll also note that a low-CHR character doesn't necessarily have to be gruff/stuttering/etc. as Baboon suggested (sorry Baboon). He could have "all the right words at exactly the right time," but "still mean nothing to you, and you don't know why."
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...
100% agreement with you there, I had thought you were arguing that a low stat dictated one could not even attempt to roleplay a situation and that was what I was taking issue with. It was my fault for misunderstanding your post. Now that you've clarified it for me, it looks as if we are in consensus for the most part.
Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage: You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll.There doesn't appear to be a "pull your punches" rule in the PRD, but I would be surprised if a GM wouldn't let you (and yes, I expect it would drop his to hit as well).
But seriously - can a STR 18 character pick up an egg when he wants to, instead of crushing it to a pulp or throwing it into the heavens? Yes. Can a CHR 18 character be a jerk? Yes. Can a STR 5 character pick up a 1000 lb horse off his friend...no.
This isn't a double standard. One character is trying to play outside his player's abilities. The other is choosing not to use his character's abilities to the fullest. One is fine, the other is not.
Your not getting it, if you have a strong fighter and you want him to act weak then fine, to make it equivalent to the cha thing lets say you make a fighter and determine he is a 90 pound weakling, can barely pick up his sword (this is your concept) you give him strength 18, now without houserules whenever he blasts a bad guy into a wall he has completely broken your concept.
See it goes both ways.
At brassbaboon: I was assuming two barmaids, and no that doesnt have to be how he acts, irl I am not a socially akward, smelly, ahole, but my charisma is abysmal. Hardly matters how you act, with a low cha you have to rely on impressing people, it doesnt automatically mean something is socially wrong with you
At brassbaboon: I was assuming two barmaids, and no that doesnt have to be how he acts, irl I am not a socially akward, smelly, ahole, but my charisma is abysmal. Hardly matters how you act, with a low cha you have to rely on impressing people, it doesnt automatically mean something is socially wrong with you
The point being, that there is a down side to the CHA 5, and it should be roleplayed. For example, you say you have a 5 CHA, but are not a socially awkward a-hole. I can believe that. I know people like that.
Person A : This person has a low Charisma, they have very little self confidence in themselves. They don't assert themselves. They are not smelly, they are polite, they are even somewhat attractive physically. But they are socially awkward and don't deal well with people. They are not a bad person, nor someone you'd mind hanging out with, but they are not a person who makes any kind of first impression. It's not that they make a bad first impression, they simply make none. I've seen them offer a good idea in a group situation, but it doesn't impinge on anyone's minds because they just sort of say it without confidence and a lot of times I've seen people not even realize they were talking. The same idea, by someone with passion and confidence, get's listened to.
Person B : I know someone else who's got an IQ that's mensa level, but he just doesn't get social cues. Think Temperance Brennan from Bones TV series. Not an a-hole, but, socially grating. Even physically attractive, but the personality just has to grow on you. This person does make a bad first impression, because they just don't get social niceties. They speak their mind in plain language, and most people take that as insulting, even though it's not intended that way. This person would run into a burning building to save an animal, much less a human. So not an a-hole, but they just don't get social interaction.
Person C : Another person I know, who has poor hygiene habits. They can be personable when they want to be (put some effort into diplomacy), but, under normal circumstances they come off as a smelly crude gamer (crude jokes, bad body odor, etc). We've had to send them home from games before and tell them to bathe before coming back. They're not an a-hole, but they aren't the person you think of as a natural leader either.
Other end of the spectrum...
Person D : Now, I also know someone that's kind of irritating when I stop and think it through, but unless I do, they're great. It's annoying because they can talk anyone into just about anything. They're great fun to be around, they game and roleplay really well, and even can run games. However, they have a wisdom that makes me cry when I stop and think about it. This is the affable person who can't keep their money straight, who get's talked into buying cars that take up 80% of their monthly income by used cars salesmen, owes people money all the time, etc. But their personal charisma is so high that people let them slide on it.
As has been said (by me and others, although several people on here keep ignoring it when we post it), you can define that low CHA however you want, but define it and roleplay it, and don't get prissy with the GM when he treats you like you have said your character is in game. I don't mind if someone wants to do a 7 CHA if they are willing to roleplay it and not insist on being treated as if they have a 18 cha due to roleplaying.
At brassbaboon: I was assuming two barmaids, and no that doesnt have to be how he acts, irl I am not a socially akward, smelly, ahole, but my charisma is abysmal. Hardly matters how you act, with a low cha you have to rely on impressing people, it doesnt automatically mean something is socially wrong with you
If there are two barmaids and I'm playing the human, I'm probably going to try to win them both. Maybe the DC to get two of them in bed at once is DC 20 instead of DC 15 for one. Great, now I'm on equal footing with the dwarf, but the 50% of the time I win, I get them both, the 50% of the time I lose, I get at least one. The dwarf still spends 50% of his time sulking in his beer.
And that's just the mechanics of it. To role play this properly you role play your dwarf as socially awkward, shy, gruff, smelly, I don't care what you do, but you role play the dwarf in such a way that it is believable that the barmaid would rather share the human with another barmaid than spend the evening with the dwarf alone.
If you aren't doing that then in my opinion you are missing out on the true value of the experience of role playing because you are not getting into character, you are trying to win a situation and your character is just a puppet for you to manipulate according to what the PLAYER desires and how the PLAYER acts.
Every time I hear or see someone saying "great role playing" when the player has just destroyed any hope of presenting their character in a way that matches the concept, abilities and skills of the actual character in a consistent and believable manner, I just have to inwardly shake my head in disappointment. There is no "character" in that case, there is just a player with a piece of paper in front of them that they use for mechanical purposes. That's all.
I think that people try to use role playing as a way to ignore their attributes too often. You can say and do the same things as someone else but the lower Charisma person will not be taken the same way as the higher Charisma person.
"Before we let you leave, your commander must cross that field, present himself before this army, put his head between his legs, and kiss his own arse."
A line like this is certainly not going to fall under any of the social skills. It's not diplomatic, not a bluff, and not meant to be intimidating (both sides had armies with them). When said by a low Charisma person it could provoke an immediate attack. When said by a higher Charisma person, you might be able to live long enough to get your army involved in the battle.
Or:
"Some men are longer than others."
"Your mother been telling ya stories about me again, eh? "
A lower Charisma person may have just picked a fight with this joke while the higher Charisma person can get away with it.
Here is a list of Charismatic characters from movies that are not necessarily liked:
1) Tony Montana
2) Harry Callahan
3) Gunny Sergeant Hartman
4) Alex (from A Clockwork Orange)
5) Jules Winfield
6) RP McMurphy (One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest)
7) Tommy DeVito
8) Mickey O'Niel (Snatch)
9) Casanova Frankenstein
10) Keyser Söze
11) Agent Smith
12) JD (Heathers)
13) Magneto
14) The Joker
15) Khan Noonien Singh
16) Jeffrey Goines (12 Monkeys)
17) The Dude
18) Charlie Harper (ok not from a movie but I think it fits the bill)
19) Gollum
20) Hannibal Lector
None of these characters are particularly likable and they all have high Charisma. They can get away with stuff that someone with a lower Charisma can't. It's not because of diplomacy either. Some of them have little to no concept of diplomacy. Some are not intimidating either. RP McMurphy, Mickey O'Niel, JD, Jeffrey Goines, Charlie Harper, Gollum, and The Dude don't really have much in the way of any ranks in social skills and rely on their higher Charisma.
|
Your not getting it, if you have a strong fighter and you want him to act weak then fine, to make it equivalent to the cha thing lets say you make a fighter and determine he is a 90 pound weakling, can barely pick up his sword (this is your concept) you give him strength 18, now without houserules whenever he blasts a bad guy into a wall he has completely broken your concept.
It doesn't go "both ways", there aren't "double standards", if one player is getting a free advantage over anyone else. If you want your fighter to be a weakling, why build him with 18 strength from the beginning ? Like I said before, if you have a stat too low for your concept, then put points in it from level 1. Your DM adapts encounters to your group. If everyone is mini-maxed, encounters will be as difficult as if you jut put points in fluff from the beginning - perhaps even more difficult since the likely of high-HP/high-damage one-shot-killer encounters is higher. Why should you fear putting points in charisma for a fighter if your DM knows beforehand he will not need sick monsters to scare your group ? And if on the opposite you have a stat too high for your concept :
- Play another class to fit your concept AND feel useful ;
- Ignore or interpret differently your stats to your roleplay if there isn't any easy solution to be effective AND stay true to the concept (terrorist with low wisdom and high Int, even if he should be kind of dumb);
- Simply play your concept, and lower your vital stat to the point of quasi-ineffectiveness (spell-less cleric). You'll not be good where people await you, but if you have fun with it, talk to your DM and fellow players so they know how they can help you and how you can contribute so everyone in the group understand they don't need mini-maxed characters to shine in this campaign.
The golden rule is that your stats don't determine how you should play or look. You should already be your stats, since your stats should reflect how you want to play your character from level 1. Roleplay, bonus stats, skill points and magic items are here to represent your evolution. 5 Charisma doesn't mean you're smelly or dumb, but at least imply you really are socially awkward or look bland at first. If a player came to me with a 5 Cha barbarian and described him like a sexy shoeless impressive god of war, I would say "Ok, fine, your village sees you like a sex-machine, your mighty body and powerful muscles make you the epithome of beauty in a young male body. Don't expect the same treatment in any other place of the world. Except enventually for some girls... "interested" in savage countries, pure muscle or the mighty barbarian fantasm. If you want to look sexy, put more points in charisma, you'll maybe look less of a sex-machine in your village, but the probability of you watering womens mouths in any other place will only be greater. Nice opportunity for a possible village-related drama.".
It wouldn't mean nobody will be impressed by it's raw strength - but it will not be either a mechanical advantage against experimented adventurers. A low stat doesn't forbid you to attempt some actions, but you also have to deal with a lower chance for them to conclude in a positive way.
BTW, a big +1 to everyone who wrote a response after my previous post.
Your not getting it, if you have a strong fighter and you want him to act weak then fine, to make it equivalent to the cha thing lets say you make a fighter and determine he is a 90 pound weakling, can barely pick up his sword (this is your concept) you give him strength 18, now without houserules whenever he blasts a bad guy into a wall he has completely broken your concept.
He can't BE a 90-pound weakling. He can ACT weak. He can ACT like he can't pick up a sword. But he IS strong - when he wants to, if his life is on the line, he can lay down the smack. His player could have based the whole character around the surprise on other players' faces when he does his "big reveal," preferably in the middle of a hard fight. I think that's awesome.
Think of this: when they casted for Forest Gump, did they have to find a low-INT actor? Of course not. They found Tom Hanks, who can ACT like he has less.
A high-CHR can ACT like an a-hole. A high-WIS character can like fistfights and ACT like he's low-WIS. Hell, a high-CON character who gets hit can ACT like low-CON and fall down, pretending to be unconscious. etc.
You can always ACT like your ability is less than it is, and if you have a roleplaying reason, my hat is off to you. Because you are choosing to forego an advantage for the sake of your concept.
But you can't act like your ability is above what it is. The 5-STR guy can't act like he has a 18-STR. Oh, sure, he can wear sham armor and carry a tin sword. But how well he can ACT the part should be directly proportional to his abilities. The 5-STR, once he starts swinging, is revealed.
For CHR, you "start swinging" the moment you open your mouth. He could dress like James Bond, but if he delivers those awesome one-liners, GOOD roleplaying is to give the players around you obvious cues that he's just not that suave.
For a clarification exercise, could those who think that the stat alone should dictate how you should act give me a clear, preferably score by score, explanation of where you deign someone is and is not in their right to figure out stuff, act like he is cool, etc.
You all seem to agree that int 7 is dumb as a sock, and you should preferably only open your mouth to state your appreciation for pie and puppet theater. But what what about int9? 10? Is an "average" good enough to channel the intellect of someone raised in an enlightened age, or should you still shut up when you instantly grasp the solution?
How different is a 16 from a 12? It is a HUGE difference in terms of points spent (2 vs 10), so for balance purposes, there should be a very notable difference, since the main argument is getting returns for your stat investment, or at least that is what I derive from the statement "not roleplaying low charisma = cheating/abuse".
And how does this affect the game mechanically? Is the mythical barmaid in question going to be unfriendly against the cha5 and friendly against the cha16? That is an advantage of 10 in terms of diplomacy. And effectively landing the Cha5 at a mechanical cha-5 and the cha16 at a mechanical cha26. Suddently, you break the game in terms of charisma.
Or is this "fair" in order to "fix" the "broken" charisma stat?
|
For a clarification exercise, could those who think that the stat alone should dictate how you should act give me a clear, preferably score by score, explanation of where you deign someone is and is not in their right to figure out stuff, act like he is cool, etc.
You all seem to agree that int 7 is dumb as a sock, and you should preferably only open your mouth to state your appreciation for pie and puppet theater. But what what about int9? 10? Is an "average" good enough to channel the intellect of someone raised in an enlightened age, or should you still shut up when you instantly grasp the solution?
How different is a 16 from a 12? It is a HUGE difference in terms of points spent (2 vs 10), so for balance purposes, there should be a very notable difference, since the main argument is getting returns for your stat investment, or at least that is what I derive from the statement "not roleplaying low charisma = cheating/abuse".
And how does this affect the game mechanically? Is the mythical barmaid in question going to be unfriendly against the cha5 and friendly against the cha16? That is an advantage of 10 in terms of diplomacy. And effectively landing the Cha5 at a mechanical cha-5 and the cha16 at a mechanical cha26. Suddently, you break the game in terms of charisma.
Or is this "fair" in order to "fix" the "broken" charisma stat?
For INT, the old rule (and the one I use, is = to IQ divided by 10.
So 7 int = 70 IQ, or dumb but not retarded.
10 is 100 IQ, average.
12 is 120 or above average but not a genius
14 is 140 really smart
16 is 160 genius
18 is 180 world class genius
20 is 200 the smartest person in the world.
So 20 Charisma is the Dos equis guy.
7 Charisma is Moe from the Simpsons.
A high-CHR can ACT like an a-hole. A high-WIS character can like fistfights and ACT like he's low-WIS. Hell, a high-CON character who gets hit can ACT like low-CON and fall down, pretending to be unconscious. etc.
I would argue that you can have a high Charisma and still be an a-hole. There are tons of examples in the Bestiaries from dragons to devils to demons and more. In the Gamemastery Guide and the NPC Guide bring us plenty more. Not all of them are evil. Some are good and just a-holes.
For a clarification exercise, could those who think that the stat alone should dictate how you should act give me a clear, preferably score by score, explanation of where you deign someone is and is not in their right to figure out stuff, act like he is cool, etc.
This would be impossible. It's not a hard, carved in stone rule. It's a bit more fluid. What we are saying is that you do not get to play Captain Kirk with a 7 Charisma. You do need to put some effort into making your charismatic character... charismatic. In other words, make it a positive modifier.
You all seem to agree that int 7 is dumb as a sock, and you should preferably only open your mouth to state your appreciation for pie and puppet theater. But what what about int9? 10? Is an "average" good enough to channel the intellect of someone raised in an enlightened age, or should you still shut up when you instantly grasp the solution?
I love hyperbole and some are better at it than others. If you want to play a character who is smart, then you need to put some points into Intelligence. If you want to play someone who is smart in some areas, you can get away with ranks in a few Knowledge skills. It is ok, even with a 7 Intelligence, to instantly grasp the solution sometimes. It's when it's happening more often than it's not that there's a problem. If you want to put a number on it, then how about multiply your Intelligence score by 5 and that's the percentage of time that you should "instantly grasp the solution." So a 7 Intelligence character should manage that about 35% of the time. This is not a perfect way to handle it but should give you an idea of where I am coming from.
How different is a 16 from a 12? It is a HUGE difference in terms of points spent (2 vs 10), so for balance purposes, there should be a very notable difference, since the main argument is getting returns for your stat investment, or at least that is what I derive from the statement "not roleplaying low charisma = cheating/abuse".
The difference between a 12 and a 16 isn't necessarily 10 points. It can be something as simple as a race (10 to a 12 is a 0 point investment so we're talking 8 points). It can be 16 levels. It can be 40,000 gold pieces. It can be any combination of those.
If you want to play a Charismatic character, then put points in Charisma. If you want to play an Intelligent character, put points in Intelligence. If you want to play a Wise character, put points in Wisdom. This will show the raw talent your character has as well as affect the appropriate skills.
And how does this affect the game mechanically? Is the mythical barmaid in question going to be unfriendly against the cha5 and friendly against the cha16? That is an advantage of 10 in terms of diplomacy. And effectively landing the Cha5 at a mechanical cha-5 and the cha16 at a mechanical cha26. Suddently, you break the game in terms of charisma.
Why does everything have to affect the game mechanically? It doesn't have to be etched in stone with utter perfection to be useful. There can, and should be some gray area. There is plenty of wiggle room with all the stats, including the physical ones. For example, with Strength, maybe you are better at utilizing your muscles and physics to emulate someone who is just stronger. By this I mean, maybe you understand how to lift with your legs instead of your back. With Constitution, maybe you don't get sick often but you are a light-weight when it comes to booze. With Dexterity, maybe you excellent depth perception but get vertigo.
Or is this "fair" in order to "fix" the "broken" charisma stat?
I don't see any of this as unfair nor do I see Charisma as broken and in need of fixing.
For a clarification exercise, could those who think that the stat alone should dictate how you should act give me a clear, preferably score by score, explanation of where you deign someone is and is not in their right to figure out stuff, act like he is cool, etc.
You all seem to agree that int 7 is dumb as a sock, and you should preferably only open your mouth to state your appreciation for pie and puppet theater. But what what about int9? 10? Is an "average" good enough to channel the intellect of someone raised in an enlightened age, or should you still shut up when you instantly grasp the solution?
How different is a 16 from a 12? It is a HUGE difference in terms of points spent (2 vs 10), so for balance purposes, there should be a very notable difference, since the main argument is getting returns for your stat investment, or at least that is what I derive from the statement "not roleplaying low charisma = cheating/abuse".
And how does this affect the game mechanically? Is the mythical barmaid in question going to be unfriendly against the cha5 and friendly against the cha16? That is an advantage of 10 in terms of diplomacy. And effectively landing the Cha5 at a mechanical cha-5 and the cha16 at a mechanical cha26. Suddently, you break the game in terms of charisma.
Or is this "fair" in order to "fix" the "broken" charisma stat?
Kamel, you are extending and exaggerating the role playing arguments into the range of silliness. I don't know if that is deliberate, if those of us describing role playing as playing your CHARACTER are not doing a good job of explaining, or if you and others are having a hard time comprehending. The constant back and forth where the debate seems at times to be going at odd angles and crossing each other instead of providing actual opportunity to bring understanding creates a lot of frustration on both sides.
Nobody has said "the stat alone should dictate how you should act." What those of us who promote the idea that your stats, abilities and concept should be the guide are saying is that characters should be consistent, believable and their actions should be a reflection of the actual character written on the sheet.
The dwarf in my example above did his best to "act like" he was a smooth, suave operator. The thing is, the PLAYER has to interpret how a dwarf with cha 5 and perhaps an intelligence of 10 and a wisdom of 12, who has put ranks into diplomacy and has a trait which boosts diplomacy might act. Since the attribute scores are the very core of a character, that should be a (perhaps THE) major determining factor in the character's ABILITY to act in a certain way (this is why they are called ABILITY scores). In my case I chose to present that low charisma as a sort of gruffness, use of inappropriate language and lack of ability to pick up on social cues. There are other ways to play the same thing, such as the dwarf being unaware of offensive body odor, or physically repulsive appearance or an overbearing arrogance or many other personality traits that put people off, or some combination of them. But to accurately portray a character with a charisma of 5, there should be SOME in game representation of why that character's root, raw charisma is so abysmally low.
The same would be true of wisdom. My witch has an average wisdom. I have decided that my witch has a compulsive addictive personality. That means he has a drug problem. When he is tempted by drugs, I set a DC according to circumstances and make a wisdom roll. If he fails the wisdom roll, he will succumb to his temptation and partake of his drugs. Since his wisdom is average, he succeeds on his roll more often than he fails. If his wisdom were lower, he would fail more, meaning that in game he would be doing drugs more often. This is a very specific, mechanically driven example of how his in game behavior is directly, consistently and conceptually driven by the actual mechanics of his RAW WISDOM score.
I do stuff like this all the time. I make wisdom and intelligence rolls all the time to decide if my character is following some impulse, compulsion or secret desire. Physical scores have very specific mechanical rules, but I still make up my own.
By far the most difficult ability score to deal with in this way is charisma, but I still do my best. My witch has a high charisma (16) so I play him as being a dominant personality who takes charge in social situations, interacts with NPCs frequently, voices his opinion to the party regularly and never misses an opportunity to be the first person to suggest strategies, tactics or actions to the group. Since his intelligence is 20, I do my best to make those interactions as intelligent as possible, meaning when I make strategic or tactical suggestions, I do my best for them to be good, solid ones. If I had a cha 20 character with an intelligence of 10, I would play him as even more socially dominant but would deliberately make his suggestions, especially tactical or strategic ones, less effective. My druid has an average charisma so she does not attempt to influence the party she is in unless she has a very specific reason for doing so (much as a real person would) and only speaks up in most group discussions if her high wisdom indicates to her that the party is about to embark on a foolish endeavor.
I give a lot of thought to this and do my best to construct a consistent, believable character based on their scores. I consider skill ranks to be training and to be for very specific purposes. But I also consider the character's background and concept when deciding where to put skill ranks. In general a character with a very low wisdom and/or intelligence is not going to be very good at choosing which skills to take. So a character with a wisdom of 10 and a charisma of 5 is probably not going to spend a lot of skill points on charisma based skills. A character with a wisdom of 18 and a charisma of 5 might well devote MOST of their skill points on charisma based skills.
In my gaming I try my best to get "under the skin" of the character and do everything related to that character the way that character would based on those ability scores and skills, which drive the concept.
It can be very difficult when you decide that for consistency's sake, and to stick to a concept you have to choose an action or a path that you, as the PLAYER, know is deliberately non-optimal. But that's what people do in real life and so should characters in RPGs. At least that's how I see it.
Bob/Brass: The reasoning of my arguments is that people keep saying that if your X is lower than Y, Z should happen. Without ever really giving a satisfactory explanation of what Y is, or how Z impacts the game.
So what we end up with here is an expressed desire to make weak stats stronger by attributing an intangible straight-jacket that creates a more perceptible disadvantage for dumping some stats, in order to equalize the impact of dumping them to the mechanical consequences of dumping other stats.
Which I can understand, sure. But the fundamental system is flawed in that regard, IMO, because stats are not equal. Having 14 dex does way more for ANY character than having 14 cha. +2 to AC, ranged hit, reflex, initiative, lots of skills vs +2 to a handful of skills.
And the reason I asked for the concrete numbers is that if you are going to have an impact, you need concrete rules for it. If someone likes someone more, then that has an impact in terms of game mechanics. And without a mechanical impact, stat equality cannot happen, and this whole thread is more or less moot beyond discussing play-styles and preferences.
Sure, I'll bite. I'm sure Kamel will make up stuff about what I post, but what the hey. We'll go from 3 to 25 (human range, no magic or wishes).
STR
3 - Small child (say 6 or 7 years old)
5 - Early Teens, Very old woman
7 - Typical 90lb weakling
10 - Average human
12 - Average Baseball player
14 - Average Runningback
16 - Average Pro Wrestler/Boxer
18 - Average Linebacker/Heavyweight boxer
20 - Professional weightlifter/Olympic Weightlifter
22 - Professional Weightlifter on illegal steroids
24 - Andre the Giant
DEX
3 - Small child (say 6 or 7 years old)
5 - Very old man, Adult with a nerve disorder
7 - Typical clumsy geek
10 - Average Human
12 - Average Tennis Player, Average Ecdysiast
14 - Average Basketball Player, Good Ecdysiast
16 - Average Gymnast, Professional Porn Star
18 - Average Olympic Gymnast, OMG Ecdysiast,
20 - Cirque du Soleil Performer, Jackie Chan
22 - Daredevil, Batman
24 - Catwoman
CON
3 - Small child (Say 6 or 7 years old)
5 - Very old woman, Adult with chronic disorder
7 - Typical pasty geek who never exercises
10 - Average Human
12 - Average Farmer, Pulates Instructor, Average National Guardsman
14 - Professional Boxer, Average Football Player, Average Full time Soldier
16 - Heavyweight Boxer, Average Professional Wrestler
18 - Linebacker, Sumo Wrestler, Third Dan Black Belt Martial Artist
20 - Jungle Survivalist, Average Marvel Mutant
22 - Wolverine, Triathalon Winner
24 - Piotr Rasputin (sans metal)
INT
3 - Barely sentient and animalistic
5 - Average Child (say 6 or 7)
7 - Forest Gump
10 - Average Person
12 - Average College Graduate
14 - Doctor, Chemical Engineer, Master's Degree Holder
16 - Neurosurgeon, Rocket Scientist, Doctorate Holder
18 - Einstein, Stephen Hawking (both at height of career)
20 - Garry Kasparov, Batman
22 - Kim Ung-Yong, Reed Richards
24 - William James Sidis, Brainiac
WIS
3 - Average Child (Say 6 or 7)
5 - Average Early Teenager
7 - Average 16 - 18year old
10 - Average Person
12 - Average Undercover Officer, Average Priest/Clerical/Etc
14 - Batman, Typical undercover FBI/CIA agent
16 - Senior Undercover Field FBI/CIA agent
18 - Doctor Xavier
20 - Dali Lhamma
22 - Sister Teresa
24 - Mahatma Ghandi
CHA
3 - Typical Lepper
5 - Temperance Brennan
7 - The Thing
10 - Average Person
12 - Average Child (Say 6 or 7), Average Radio personality
14 - Average Anchorman/woman, Gregory House, Used Car Salesman, Politician
16 - Johnny Cash, Liam Neesan, Nicholas Cage, Good Politician
18 - Johnny Storm, Meg Ryan, Cat Woman, Jack Nicholson
20 - Sean Connery, Professor Xavier, Magneto
22 - Winston Churchill
24 - John F. Kennedy
EDIT : And yes, I know INT is treated differently than the rest of the stats, blame the system. Technically, you can have less than 3 str/dex/con/wis/cha, but not INT. Str below 3 is usually babies and toddlers, same with dex, etc. INT is a hard cap, anyone who isn't in a vegetative state has a 3 or higher.
EDIT 2 : Added Triathalon Winner
Bob/Brass: The reasoning of my arguments is that people keep saying that if your X is lower than Y, Z should happen. Without ever really giving a satisfactory explanation of what Y is, or how Z impacts the game.
What we (or at least I) am trying to communicate is that players ought to try to build the character they want to play. Having built a character, they ought to try to play the character in front of them.
That's really it. That's all.
What we don't like:
"This stat is mechanically weak, so when I build a character whose concept is a smooth-talking, charismatic politician, I really don't have to put points in CHR."
"I can dump this stat, change nothing about the way I play, and get free strength points."
"I have a character concept, now let's ignore it and figure out how to win at this game's mechanics."
That's how you "roleplay" in a video game, and although I love a good CRPG, they are only called RPG's because they have character stats and progression. Not because there's roleplaying in them.
Here's what we like: if you are building, e.g., a fighter, you can consider dumping CHR. You should weigh the benefits (unarguable mechanical benefits) of higher STR, CON, or DEX, against the benefits (slight mechanical, but also some intangible), of playing a character with a moderate to higher CHR. If you still dump the stat, deciding to play a less-social character, and then go ahead and play that character, more power to you.
But if you dump the stat, and then act like you didn't, and the GM is foregoing diplomacy checks that your character couldn't make because you, personally, have really great CHR...
The crux: I can power-clean (or could, at one point) 225 lbs. I can't use that to give my sorcerer the benefits of 15-16 STR, while simultaneously dumping my STR to 7 to get a better CHA. The opposite shouldn't happen either.
... if one player is getting a free advantage over anyone else.
There is no such thing as a free advantage unless the GM makes one. Why attack the player when this is the game masters fault? You're charging at windmills. First your words will mean less than nothing to the player who is in a game where the game master refuses to make charisma mean anything. He will continue to do it and be happy and you will just get more and more upset. Secondly he is right to ignore you. In the game in which he is obviously playing the game master has house ruled away most of an entire stat. Why would anyone playing in such a game want to punish themselves? Do you sit at a D&D game with a Rolemaster character? If your game master deliberately ignores encumbrance do you tally it up and limit yourself anyway? If so then why? Are you having fun? It doesn't sound like it.
Let me get this in the clear... most of you are right in your own contexts.
If you are playing in a game where charisma matters and someone sat at your table with a character that had a dumped charisma and expected to be treated by NPCs as if his charisma was high, you would feel like he was cheating... correct? But the real issue here isn't the player. The real issue would be if the game master let him, right? But examine this realistically, would such a game master let him? I think you already know they wouldn't. If you on the other hand are playing in a game where charisma doesn't matter at all and the same player joins then the only one not having fun is you.
Let me also revisit my earlier point in a way people might better understand:
You can play a charming devil in any game whether your charisma is low or high. If charisma doesn't matter in the game no one will care what your charisma is. If charisma does matter then you will be far more likely to get a drink in your face rather than the girl in your arms if your charisma is low. It shouldn't stop you from allowing that personality. Maybe the player wants his character to be an unlucky lover. To use the strength analogy, a weakling can act strong all he wants but unless his game master is ignoring the strength stat, he will still be unable to lift heavy weights.
Bob/Brass: The reasoning of my arguments is that people keep saying that if your X is lower than Y, Z should happen. Without ever really giving a satisfactory explanation of what Y is, or how Z impacts the game.
It's not satisfactory to you but that's because you are reading more into what we are saying. You take what we say and push it so far to an extreme that it no longer applies. Take what we say at face value and it will make much more sense.
So what we end up with here is an expressed desire to make weak stats stronger by attributing an intangible straight-jacket that creates a more perceptible disadvantage for dumping some stats, in order to equalize the impact of dumping them to the mechanical consequences of dumping other stats.
I think if you used more skills, you would see that Charisma has more of an impact than most of the stats. This is especially true because most of the Intelligence-based skills are trained-only. I use skill checks often, usually because my players prompt me to. They want to use their stats and skills. If the fighter puts his Charisma at 14, he wants that +2 to his skill checks and asks to use the skills. That's how my players are. Each group is different. I see no need to add more complexity when it doesn't make the game better.
Which I can understand, sure. But the fundamental system is flawed in that regard, IMO, because stats are not equal. Having 14 dex does way more for ANY character than having 14 cha. +2 to AC, ranged hit, reflex, initiative, lots of skills vs +2 to a handful of skills.
Does it? What if you are playing in a game with more social interaction than combat? Now which stats are going to be more important? I have run entire sessions without combat. I just ran a high level adventure with less than half the adventure being combat. The rest was all social interactions. The party worked very hard to change attitudes of the NPCs.
And Dexterity adds to 6 skills, 2 of which are untrained (and one is limited unless you are a rogue). Charisma adds to 15 skills, 2 of which are untrained but beneficial to anyone (one is really beneficial to rangers, druids, and paladins). You can even make money off of 9 of the Charisma-based skills. With no ranks, a 14 Charisma and Skill Focus can earn you 5.5 silver a day. Doesn't sound like much but your level 1 character can earn 16 gold a month without putting his life in danger. That's about 200 gold a year. By level 5, you can retire comfortably making 50 gold a month without breaking a sweat. That's 602 gold a year. All that down time the wizard is crafting, your lowly fighter could be singing his heart out. At level 10, you're making 3.5 gold a day. That's 105 a month or 1277 a year. Again, you don't need to adventure any more if you don't want to. By level 12, you are making 315 gold a month or almost 4000 gold a year. With any down time, you are making money.
No, I don't want to play someone who can do that. I'm just pointing out that you can. Charisma is the only skill that earns you money without any cost beyond the initial, assuming you even need that.
And the reason I asked for the concrete numbers is that if you are going to have an impact, you need concrete rules for it. If someone likes someone more, then that has an impact in terms of game mechanics. And without a mechanical impact, stat equality cannot happen, and this whole thread is more or less moot beyond discussing play-styles and preferences.
You don't need concrete rules for it at all.
Strength isn't concrete. Your carrying capacity is a range of numbers.
Dexterity isn't concrete. How much better are you reacting during that 6-second round? Is it 2 seconds faster? 4 seconds slower?
Constitution isn't concrete. How many times can you be bit by a rattlesnake before dying if your Constitution is 10? What if it's 12? What if it's 18?
Intelligence isn't concrete. Precisely what level of mathematics does your character comprehend with a 12 Intelligence? How well does your character speak other languages? Does he have an accent? Does he understand subtle differences in culture that make communication vary?
Wisdom isn't concrete. How much common sense does your character have? What is common enough to be common sense? Precisely how aware is your character? Does he have 20/20 vision but can't hear really high or really low tones? Is he color blind? What is intuition, specifically and how does it impact the game, mechanically?
You do not need concrete rules for every single little thing in the game. You can use shades of gray or a sliding scale to determine things. It's perfectly acceptable to say that your character has a 7 Charisma and has the body of Adonis but speaks like Fran Drescher. It is also perfectly acceptable to say your character has a 16 Charisma and is a natural leader and entertainer but has one ear that is a little cocked to the side and he is a bit arrogant. Maybe your gnome has a higher Charisma because his nose is a bit larger than normal. Maybe your elf has a lower Charisma because he is a little pudgy.
|
|
Well, if people had to stop entering Internet arguments because this wouldn't change the opposite side's opinion, there would be no one else left on the forums. If the DM isn't taking the true character's charisma during social interactions, then yes, he's wrong and globally giving the player a free "be awesome and powerful and invincible and perfect and whatever you want freely" card. But I saw no DM saying they didn't take charisma into account in this topic. Only a player that is implying it is totally normal to ignore a stat and to boost another most advantageous one mechanically despite the fact it doesn't look like the character's concept, just to munchkin the system a bit more into awesomeness. Happy for him if he can have fun at his table, it's a game and if he loves playing and likes his character, then cool for him. I'm glad a fellow roleplayer has fun in it's game. Just don't say it's normal to mini-max and play your character like if he got easily +5 to each mental stat just because you, player, want and can roleplay it just to get your additionnal happy little +1 modifier on AC or att/damage.
Being able to influe on social interactions is a great power. It doesn't make dragons implode in one critical hit, but it can afford you to avoid the fight, or talk the dragon into preparing himself for a group that comes to kill him and which you heard about while flirting with the public lady in the tavern.
You prefer killing the dragon ? Cool for you, you're rich. Oh, did you hear about the group that came to kill the dragon ? No ? Well, they are here, and they want the treasure you're sitting on. Half HP could not be enough to make it out with full treasure or alive...
And to the question of putting myself "in danger" or giving myself disadvantages by following the system, yes, I do. Flawless characters aren't fun. I don't ask others to do the same, but at least to not get free advantages over others.
- Ignore or interpret differently your stats to your roleplay if there isn't any easy solution to be effective AND stay true to the concept (terrorist with low wisdom and high Int, even if he should be kind of dumb);
You lost me right here, you actually just started making my argument. You want your character to be an idiot but you neeed him to have high int. (this is what this sentence said) I have been advocating the same thing, don't be constrained to the stat, fluff it differently. If I don't need strength but I want to seem strong I pretend every two attacks I make is one big one, same mechanic different fluff. If I want my dwarf to get the barmaid I go a little farther to make the DC easier but I fluff it that it happened differently. I still take the penalty but my character shouldn't have too.
He can't BE a 90-pound weakling. He can ACT weak. He can ACT like he can't pick up a sword. But he IS strong - when he wants to, if his life is on the line, he can lay down the smack. His player could have based the whole character around the surprise on other players' faces when he does his "big reveal," preferably in the middle of a hard fight. I think that's awesome.
Think of this: when they casted for Forest Gump, did they have to find a low-INT actor? Of course not. They found Tom Hanks, who can ACT like he has less.
A high-CHR can ACT like an a-hole. A high-WIS character can like fistfights and ACT like he's low-WIS. Hell, a high-CON character who gets hit can ACT like low-CON and fall down, pretending to be unconscious. etc.
You can always ACT like your ability is less than it is, and if you have a roleplaying reason, my hat is off to you. Because you are choosing to forego an advantage for the sake of your concept.
But you can't act like your ability is above what it is. The 5-STR guy can't act like he has a 18-STR. Oh, sure, he can wear sham armor and carry a tin sword. But how well he can ACT the part should be directly proportional to his abilities. The 5-STR, once he starts swinging, is revealed.
For CHR, you "start swinging" the moment you open your mouth. He could dress like James Bond, but if he delivers those awesome one-liners, GOOD roleplaying is to give the players around you obvious cues that he's just not that suave.
Numerous people said they allow players to play down their stats, and since we are talking about concepts we are not talking about a character who knows he has strength but ignores it. We are talking about a concept that wants to be a weakling, I would just fluff every hit I make as two attacks, maybe my fighter will even yell sneak attack before them. My concept stays the same but I get to be an effective fighter.
Person A : This person has a low Charisma, they have very little self confidence in themselves. They don't assert themselves. They are not smelly, they are polite, they are even somewhat attractive physically. But they are socially awkward and don't deal well with people. They are not a bad person, nor someone you'd mind hanging out with, but they are not a person who makes any kind of first impression. It's not that they make a bad first impression, they simply make none. I've seen them offer a good idea in a group situation, but it doesn't impinge on anyone's minds because they just sort of say it without confidence and a lot of times I've seen people not even realize they were talking. The same idea, by someone with passion and confidence, get's listened to.
Person B : I know someone else who's got an IQ that's mensa level, but he just doesn't get social cues. Think Temperance Brennan from Bones TV series. Not an a-hole, but, socially grating. Even physically attractive, but the personality just has to grow on you. This person does make a bad first impression, because they just don't get social niceties. They speak their mind in plain language, and most people take that as insulting, even though it's not intended that way. This person would run into a burning building to save an animal, much less a human. So not an a-hole, but they just don't get social interaction.
Person C : Another person I know, who has poor hygiene habits. They can be personable when they want to be (put some effort into diplomacy), but, under normal circumstances they come off as a smelly crude gamer (crude jokes, bad body odor, etc). We've had to send them home from games before and tell them to bathe before coming back. They're not an a-hole, but they aren't the person you think of as a natural leader either.
I am as normal as the next guy, I can act exactly like the guy next to me only people will respond to him, nothing has to be wrong with a person to have a low CHA it is an innate thing. You don't need to learn how to act like others you need to one-up them for people to respond the same.
Sure a lot of it is social awkwardness but plenty of socially awkward people have high CHA, people just want to include them for no reason. So it can't be a symptom of low CHA anyway.
If you are playing in a game where charisma matters and someone sat at your table with a character that had a dumped charisma and expected to be treated by NPCs as if his charisma was high, you would feel like he was cheating... correct? But the real issue here isn't the player. The real issue would be if the game master let him, right?
My comments, from the very beginning of this thread, are all intended for organized play in PFS. I don't care what you do in your home game, though a GM who ignores mental stats and their effect on roleplaying should be aware he/she is effectively giving non-casters a bonus on their point buy.
In PFS, or any OP environment, if you play long enough you'll meet exactly the person you described. And yes, the GM is at fault too. But especially in PFS, where a GM is handling 6 or 7 players he's never met, with characters he's had no time to audit because he's got 4 hours to run a scenario that should take 5 and no one showed up on time... I think the onus is on the player. The GM can't be expected to memorize everyone's stats and abilities. He'll be lucky to count feats and see a list of prepared spells.
If the GM hasn't been burned before, he will listen to someone talk as if they are a diplomancer, not even pause to wonder if they are actually playing their own character, and say to himself something like "this is clearly a reasonable-CHR character with ranks in diplomacy, with a bonus for reasoning, I'll just let him take-10 and move on."
He's wrong, but it's understandable - and chances are, he's not wasting time with the die roll because that's even MORE time that only one player at the table is doing anything, just like the 5 minutes the PC was talking. And like most of combat, where the PC was doing all of the everything, because he's crazy combat-optimized.
If the player is doing this for an advantage (e.g. aiming to make the GM react as above) that player is wrong. You need to share the spotlight in an OP environment, and the system is set up to ensure that happens - with a mix of diplo and combat encounters, and a structured point buy so specialized characters can't cover everything. Unless a player - through their actions - lies about their character, banking on the trust of the GM. Which happens.
And that's what I have been complaining about. Again, I don't care about your home games, though I think you're missing out if you ignore the stats. Baboon, care to comment? Is this what you've been talking about?
a lot of great stuff
+1
Numerous people said they allow players to play down their stats, and since we are talking about concepts we are not talking about a character who knows he has strength but ignores it. We are talking about a concept that wants to be a weakling, I would just fluff every hit I make as two attacks, maybe my fighter will even yell sneak attack before them. My concept stays the same but I get to be an effective fighter.
I really want to know what you mean when you say concept. I promise you there's no sarcasm here.
I have said you can play down a stat, by which I mean act as though it is lower. This is because your character is supposed to be a person in the fantasy world. A person can choose not to use all of his/her abilities. A high-WIS cleric can choose to ignore the fact that he knows he shouldn't get into a fight. A high-CHR character can choose to use her social powers to piss people off. Just like a fighter can choose not to wear armor, or choose not to use Power Attack every round, or even choose to be a pacifist for a round. Preferably, you would have a roleplaying reason, but I really don't care. You're not trying to gain an advantage over other players.
Now, I'll repeat: "build the character you want to play." If you want to BE weak, give your char a low strength. If you want to BE strong but ACT weak, give your char a higher strength. If you want to BE strong, or a natural leader, or whatever, put points in the appropriate stat. It's that simple.
I really want to know what you mean when you say concept. I promise you there's no sarcasm here.
I have said you can play down a stat, by which I mean act as though it is lower. This is because your character is supposed to be a person in the fantasy world. A person can choose not to use all of his/her abilities. A high-WIS cleric can choose to ignore the fact that he knows he shouldn't get into a fight. A high-CHR character can choose to use her social powers to piss people off. Just like a fighter can choose not to wear armor, or choose not to use Power Attack every round, or even choose to be a pacifist for a round. Preferably, you would have a roleplaying reason, but I really don't care. You're not trying to gain an advantage over other players.
Now, I'll repeat: "build the character you want to play." If you want to BE weak, give your char a low strength. If you want to BE strong but ACT weak, give your char a higher strength. If you want to BE strong, or a natural leader, or whatever, put points in the appropriate stat. It's that simple.
By concept I mean the personality, look, mannerisms, and all that other stuff you give them for a background.
|
|
You lost me right here, you actually just started making my argument. You want your character to be an idiot but you neeed him to have high int. (this is what this sentence said) I have been advocating the same thing, don't be constrained to the stat, fluff it differently. If I don't need strength but I want to seem strong I pretend every two attacks I make is one big one, same mechanic different fluff. If I want my dwarf to get the barmaid I go a little farther to make the DC easier but I fluff it that it happened differently. I still take the penalty but my character shouldn't have to...
- Ignore or interpret differently your stats to your roleplay if there isn't any easy solution to be effective AND stay true to the concept (terrorist with low wisdom and high Int, even if he should be kind of dumb);
I'm not saying you can't attempt to act as if your stat was higher. I'm saying don't expect for it to work at any table that expects you to play the character you have on your sheet, and that if you intend from the beginning to play like if you had a higher charisma, then just put points in charisma. "Barbarian without charisma playing like if he had" and "alchemist nerfing his own intelligence in roleplay because he NEEDS intelligence in crunch to be useful" aren't the same at all. You ARE constrained by the stat, since the stat represent your character from level 1. To interpret up your character just because you didn't want to put points in a stat that doesn't directly influence combat isn't roleplaying, it's trying to win the optimization concept. The opposite is just trying to get a roleplay concept working at a table where massive nerfing would bring harm to the fun of everyone. If you have 5 charisma, don't play like if you had better, just get more charisma to begin with and reflect better your character. I wouldn't expect of anyone with 5 charisma to try any kind of social interactions in a situation other than extreme necessity.
By concept I mean the personality, look, mannerisms, and all that other stuff you give them for a background.
Thank you. I guess I can see concepts including deception, either of friends (e.g. a fighter acting weaker than he is, because he wants to be a hero instead of the go-to man) or enemies (e.g. a monk who runs around dressed like a wizard, hoping to attract enemies that hunt out weak wizards). I think they can also include certain compulsions or weaknesses that seem to defy the stats, because I've certainly known RL people who were brilliant but had poor choice in relationships, for instance.
There are of course limits - if a player with an 18 STR described his character as a 90-pound weakling, I *might* have an issue. But while I'd prefer mentioning "piano wire" somewhere in the description, there are plenty of ways it could be described that I'd be fine with it. But if someone's concept was to actually be weak, then yes, I'd like them to put a low STR score. Build the character you want to play; play the character you built.
I think I've written too much in this thread already, so I'll close with a few thoughts. The problem that I have is only in organized play. I've made a lot of arguments that "playing down" a stat is perfectly possible (based on RL), while "playing up" a stat defies logic, and I'm not going to repeat them.
In addition to that, I think that if a player decides to make an underpowered character, he should be allowed to. If someone wants to make a 10-point buy character for PFS? Fine by me, and I imagine everyone. A 30-point buy character? No, no, and heck no. Now, that 10-point will increase the challenge for everyone, so the player should let others know early. If you find yourself sitting at a table with 2 pregens and that 10-point character, and you're worried for your character's life, you can and maybe should walk away from the table, or grab a lvl1 pregen yourself. But you have no grounds saying that the character is unfair, whereas you'd be justified in being annoyed if someone brought a 42-pointer to the table.
You lost me right here, you actually just started making my argument. You want your character to be an idiot but you neeed him to have high int. (this is what this sentence said) I have been advocating the same thing, don't be constrained to the stat, fluff it differently. If I don't need strength but I want to seem strong I pretend every two attacks I make is one big one, same mechanic different fluff. If I want my dwarf to get the barmaid I go a little farther to make the DC easier but I fluff it that it happened differently. I still take the penalty but my character shouldn't have too.
There are some things you can't just fluff differently. Strength, at least the way you fluffed it, wouldn't work. The reason is simple: How does you swinging twice add to your carrying capacity, ability to climb, ability to swim, combat maneuver defense, ability to use a composite strength bow, your ability to bull rush someone through an ally's threatened area, your ability to overrun someone and knock them prone hard enough to lower their defenses so your allies can take attacks of opportunity, ability to break things especially moving objects like weapons, or your ability to literally hit someone hard enough to knock them out of their saddle?
If you don't need strength but want to seem strong, then you are just out of luck. Now if you only want to improve one aspect of what strength affects, then you have a ton of ways to deal with that.
If you want to make a character that is an idiot with a high intelligence, then you can lower his wisdom and possibly Charisma. You could make sure you put your extra skill ranks in non-Intelligence-based skills. He could end up knowing all kinds of useless trivia but not be relied on for anything actually useful other than his class abilities. So let's say you start with a 17 Intelligence for your alchemist. He's pretty smart. He can speak 3 languages and better understands his formulas. He's a pretty decent chemist. But he also has this weird desire to paint. He paints something on every flask he has and he's gotten pretty good at it. He also thinks that he should know how valuable his flasks are in case he wants to sell them in the market place so he spends some time learning how to appraise things. Then, because he might sell some in the market place, he thinks he should know a lot about how to run a business so he learns how to be a merchant. Then he takes his gear and runs out into the wilderness with friends to slay some orcs. Had he instead put his skill points into some Knowledge skills, he could actually be smarter because knowing is half the battle.
You lost me right here, you actually just started making my argument. You want your character to be an idiot but you neeed him to have high int. (this is what this sentence said) I have been advocating the same thing, don't be constrained to the stat, fluff it differently. If I don't need strength but I want to seem strong I pretend every two attacks I make is one big one, same mechanic different fluff. If I want my dwarf to get the barmaid I go a little farther to make the DC easier but I fluff it that it happened differently. I still take the penalty but my character shouldn't have too.There are some things you can't just fluff differently. Strength, at least the way you fluffed it, wouldn't work. The reason is simple: How does you swinging twice add to your carrying capacity, ability to climb, ability to swim, combat maneuver defense, ability to use a composite strength bow, your ability to bull rush someone through an ally's threatened area, your ability to overrun someone and knock them prone hard enough to lower their defenses so your allies can take attacks of opportunity, ability to break things especially moving objects like weapons, or your ability to literally hit someone hard enough to knock them out of their saddle?
Your ability to carry so much stuff might be entirely leg strength, which has little to do with being a brawny muscle-fiend. My sister is only about 5 ft tall, and would likely get stomped in an arm-wreslting contest, but she has tossed guys twice her size in indian-wrestling matches, and if she kicks you, you'll notice it. This comes from her years as a dancer (Acrobatics, a Dex based skill, and Preform, a Cha based skill).
Likewise, if you're carrying a lot of equipment, such as a military pack, it's rarely that you can't carry it but that you can't carry it for long before being exhausted. One could argue that is more of a feat of Endurance, rather than Strength, even though D&D would say it's entirely Strength.
If you want to make a character that is an idiot with a high intelligence, then you can lower his wisdom and possibly Charisma. You could make sure you put your extra skill ranks in non-Intelligence-based skills. He could end up knowing all kinds of useless trivia but not be relied on for anything actually useful other than his class abilities. So let's say you start with a 17 Intelligence for your alchemist. He's pretty smart. He can speak 3 languages and better understands his formulas. He's a pretty decent chemist. But he also has this weird desire to paint. He paints something on every flask he has and he's gotten pretty good at it. He also thinks that he should know how valuable his flasks are in case he wants to sell them in the market place so he spends some time learning how to appraise things. Then, because he might sell some in the market place, he thinks he should know a lot about how to run a business so he learns how to be a merchant. Then he takes his gear and runs out into the wilderness with friends to slay some orcs. Had he instead put his skill points into some Knowledge skills, he could actually be smarter because knowing is half the battle.
See, this isn't really fair to Shadow. You're basically taking liberties by refluffing the ability scores as you see fit, while essentially denying him the same aspect. If someone wants to argue the descriptive values of the Ability Scores as being factual (despite being provably non-factual in practice), then you cannot say that lowering your Wisdom would make you an idiot, as Intelligence is specifically spelled out as your capacity to learn and reason, so if he wants to play an unreasoning character with a High Int, then by that argument he cannot.
Likewise, Charisma has absolutely nil to do with Idiocy in both game terms and the descriptive fluff which is being argued so vehemently on these boards these days. Someone that many of the posters would be a drooling, mentally damaged, grade A full blown insurmountable moron (Int 3) could rock socks and make everyone agree with him and be socially gifted in the extreme (Cha 20, maxed Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive - and it is possible with a 3 Int).
Meanwhile, Mr. Loblaw, you suggest that for him to be less Intelligent, for him to place his skill points in stuff that doesn't suggest Intelligence, and therefor he would make him seem less Intelligent in practice because you are judging the character as a complete whole instead of a random array of 6 numbers. For the most part, I actually would agree with this kind of approach. However, there has been a lot of moaning and groaning about players doing just that, because it somehow "ignores your ability scores", and it goes against the generic 1-line description of the base statistic.
For example, one could just as easily Have a Human Paladin with a 7 Intelligence who puts a few ranks into skills like Linguistics, Knowledge (Religion), and Knowledge (Local). The player might explain his 7 Int being from growing up without a steady education, or maybe as a temple orphan who spent all his time doing chores and training to fight the good fight, and then learning more about the world after he goes out to do his thing.
However, people argue that this is somehow "cheating" (which leads me to think people just have no understanding of the word), or that this doesn't make you any smarter, and you're still a dirt-stupid drooling neanderthal.
It cannot work both ways. I, however, find no fault in your arguments Mr. Loblaw. Merely pointing out where you and Shadow seem to actually be arguing the exact same things, but you may or may not realize it. Everything can't fit inside of 6 little numbers between 5 and 20.
====================
Personally, I would hate having to play a roleplaying game from such a gamist perspective that I would have to play a set of 6 numbers instead of a character. I've been roleplaying since I was 13, and I would have dumped this hobby for something less mechanically restrictive to developing an interesting character and roleplaying than that. Like computer RPGs.
My comments, from the very beginning of this thread, are all intended for organized play in PFS.
You might be the only one intending it as such.
I don't care what you do in your home game, though a GM who ignores mental stats and their effect on roleplaying should be aware he/she is effectively giving non-casters a bonus on their point buy.
I agree. I have said the stat matters. It's the game masters responsibility to balance the game. There are good ways to balance the game and bad ways. The good ways get the player thinking about his character and make good use of skill challenges as well as the stat itself. The bad ways simply punish in some heavy handed way a player who may have built his character that way not to 'cheat' but rather to make a flawed but fun personality.
In PFS, or any OP environment, if you play long enough you'll meet exactly the person you described. And yes, the GM is at fault too. But especially in PFS, where a GM is handling 6 or 7 players he's never met, with characters he's had no time to audit because he's got 4 hours to run a scenario that should take 5 and no one showed up on time... I think the onus is on the player. The GM can't be expected to memorize everyone's stats and abilities. He'll be lucky to count feats and see a list of prepared spells.He's wrong, but it's understandable - and chances are, he's not wasting time with the die roll because that's even MORE time that only one player at the table is doing anything, just like the 5 minutes the PC was talking. And like most of combat, where the PC was doing all of the everything, because he's crazy combat-optimized.
If the player is doing this for an advantage (e.g. aiming to make the GM react as above) that player is wrong. You need to share the spotlight in an OP environment,...
I have run an event at a major convention and helped out as a volunteer at a couple of minor conventions. My event used pre-generated characters so I honestly don't have experience with having to screen characters during my time slot. If what you say happened to you then yes I can understand your anger and your reluctance to place a lot of blame on the game master. I haven't run "living" events. Is this common? Do people actually try to cheat in those games? If so I think the event organizers should be made aware so that player can be removed... and if possible time allotted to allow a review of the characters before play begins.
good examples on strength
This would be one way to play down your STR.
Someone that many of the posters would be a drooling, mentally damaged, grade A full blown insurmountable moron (Int 3) could rock socks and make everyone agree with him and be socially gifted in the extreme (Cha 20, maxed Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive - and it is possible with a 3 Int).
Two thoughts: 1, it's tricky (though not impossible) to max 3 skills with a 3 int. Unless you go rogue/bard/ranger, it depends a little on if your GM adds favored class and human bonuses AFTER the rule that you always gain one per level. 2, Forest Gump.
For example, one could just as easily Have a Human Paladin with a 7 Intelligence who puts a few ranks into skills like Linguistics, Knowledge (Religion), and Knowledge (Local). The player might explain his 7 Int being from growing up without a steady education, or maybe as a temple orphan who spent all his time doing chores and training to fight the good fight, and then learning more about the world after he goes out to do his thing.
However, people argue that this is somehow "cheating" (which leads me to think people just have no understanding of the word), or that this doesn't make you any smarter, and you're still a dirt-stupid drooling neanderthal.
Again with the skill points. For my part, I would only consider it "cheating" if you're describing your character as above-average intelligence, when he is provably not. There are a few descriptors that, to me, imply above-average INT, which I would be unhappy if you use - e.g. "tactical genius." It is preferable if you act the INT you put in, but it can be really hard to know what a low-INT vs high-INT character would do. Also, your descriptions are interesting, but might need to come up with new fluff when he gains a level, since he won't learn as much as others do. Though perhaps you could say his lack of schooling affected his ability to learn, since he will be learning a little slower than most.
And then, oh, look, you've described your 7 INT as being a handicap (learning disability) that your player has to overcome. Suddenly no one here has a problem.
Personally, I would hate having to play a roleplaying game from such a gamist perspective that I would have to play a set of 6 numbers instead of a character. I've been roleplaying since I was 13, and I would have dumped this hobby for something less mechanically restrictive to developing an interesting character and roleplaying than that. Like computer RPGs.
1) Have you tried roleplaying in a organized play environment? 2) I honestly don't consider it too restrictive to say "if you want to be above average in an ability, be above average in your stat." Or, optionally, "if you play the absolute lowest stat available in organized play, you ought to act below average." Do you?
|
|
For example, one could just as easily Have a Human Paladin with a 7 Intelligence who puts a few ranks into skills like Linguistics, Knowledge (Religion), and Knowledge (Local). The player might explain his 7 Int being from growing up without a steady education, or maybe as a temple orphan who spent all his time doing chores and training to fight the good fight, and then learning more about the world after he goes out to do his thing.
However, people argue that this is somehow "cheating" .
Yes, because skills represent training and education.
Intelligence is an ability, skills are training. The 7 paladin isn't uneducated, he is less intelligent that average.
This is what you seem to be missing in all of these discussions. The ability score is who you are. The skills are things you learn. If you are smart, you can learn more things (bonus skill points) and if you are dumb you learn less (negative skill points)
You want negative modifiers to have no effect, while receiving positive effects from positive modifiers.
If a character has a 5 intelligence but has a tons of ranks and skill focus in religion, he will be a person with 5 intelligence who knows a lot about religion. He will not be any smarter, he will just know about one thing very well in the same way Rain Man knows when the peoples court is on.
You want your cake while not getting fat. And you can have it, it is called a house rule.
@Min
I think we're straight, now.
Yes, I've seen people try to cheat (in various ways), despite my relative lack of PFS experience. Although I wasn't there when it happened, I saw the before-after effects of a damn fine GM getting burned for the first time by player cheating. Apparently a player told him she was level 5, played a level 10 character, and when pressed turned out only to have 2 chronicles (meaning she should have been level 1). He's a little less trusting now.
When you see stuff like that, you tend to get a little touchy around the edges. The actions described in this thread are hardly on that level of maliciousness, but the goal is the same - trying to have a "cooler" character than you should.
I'll grant you that my reactions will be quite different - the lying about her level lady I would campaign for permanent removal from PFS. The guy who shows up "lying" about ability scores I would talk to, assuming first that he simply isn't familiar with the idea of roleplaying the character in front of him. They aren't even on the same order of magnitude of offense, though the idea is similar.
If the DM isn't taking the true character's charisma during social interactions, then yes, he's wrong and globally giving the player a free "be awesome and powerful and invincible and perfect and whatever you want freely" card. But I saw no DM saying they didn't take charisma into account in this topic. Only a player that is implying it is totally normal to ignore a stat and to boost another most advantageous one mechanically despite the fact it doesn't look like the character's concept, just to munchkin the system a bit more into awesomeness. Happy for him if he can have fun at his table, it's a game and if he loves playing and likes his character, then cool for him. I'm glad a fellow roleplayer has fun in it's game. Just don't say it's normal to mini-max and play your character like if he got easily +5 to each mental stat just because you, player, want and can roleplay it just to get your additionnal happy little +1 modifier on AC or att/damage.
I am not saying it's normal to toss aside a stat and expect everyone to react like you didn't. I am saying it's pointless to get upset with the player. He isn't taking a "free advantage" if that's how his game master runs his games. Everyone else in that Combat Sim is having fun. Only you are upset. Why? Because you are in the wrong game. Switch to the more role oriented game run by someone else and be happy yourself. Or better yet try running a role oriented game to see if these players can have fun doing something other than killing things.
Your ability to carry so much stuff might be entirely leg strength, which has little to do with being a brawny muscle-fiend. My sister is only about 5 ft tall, and would likely get stomped in an arm-wreslting contest, but she has tossed guys twice her size in indian-wrestling matches, and if she kicks you, you'll notice it. This comes from her years as a dancer (Acrobatics, a Dex based skill, and Preform, a Cha based skill).
If you go back and read some of my posts, I have said that you can refluff the physical stats. I was saying that the particular way he was doing it was only looking at one aspect of strength and would be better served refluffing something else other than strength. It would work perfectly for Base Attack Bonus, for example.
Likewise, if you're carrying a lot of equipment, such as a military pack, it's rarely that you can't carry it but that you can't carry it for long before being exhausted. One could argue that is more of a feat of Endurance, rather than Strength, even though D&D would say it's entirely Strength.
Actually, Endurance does come into play if you are carrying too much equipment. As someone who has had to hump a ruck and the M60 along with my own tripod and ammo, I know this feeling very well. If you are carrying a medium or heavier load, your movement is lowered. In addition, you can't walk as far without having to deal with fatigue. So Strength does come into play as well as Constitution.Your ability to carry so much stuff might be entirely leg strength, which has little to do with being a brawny muscle-fiend. My sister is only about 5 ft tall, and would likely get stomped in an arm-wreslting contest, but she has tossed guys twice her size in indian-wrestling matches, and if she kicks you, you'll notice it. This comes from her years as a dancer (Acrobatics, a Dex based skill, and Preform, a Cha based skill).I never said that a strong character had to be a brawny muscle-fiend. Tossing people twice your size is easy if you understand and can apply some basic physics. I've done it too. That is a combat maneuver though and not fully strength. If you have training in it, you are increasing your odds of pulling it off. The Improved feats generally start with giving you a +4 bonus to your Strength for that single purpose only.
See, this isn't really fair to Shadow. You're basically taking liberties by refluffing the ability scores as you see fit, while essentially denying him the same aspect. If someone wants to argue the descriptive values of the Ability Scores as being factual (despite being provably non-factual in practice), then you cannot say that lowering your Wisdom would make you an idiot, as Intelligence is specifically spelled out as your capacity to learn and reason, so if he wants to play an unreasoning character with a High Int, then by that argument he cannot.How did I refluff anything? What I did was make choices that were not necessarily the most intelligent even though the character is actually very smart. It would be unwise to take the skills I selected for an adventurer, especially if he continued to invest in those skills. Wisdom includes common sense and intuition which certainly can be part of being an idiot.
Likewise, Charisma has absolutely nil to do with Idiocy in both game terms and the descriptive fluff which is being argued so vehemently on these boards these days. Someone that many of the posters would be a drooling, mentally damaged, grade A full blown insurmountable moron (Int 3) could rock socks and make everyone agree with him and be socially gifted in the extreme (Cha 20, maxed Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive - and it is possible with a 3 Int).Charisma can absolutely come into play with being a smart idiot. Not only would you make bad choices, you wouldn't care what others think of it and you might be more than willing to let them know. I never said that you must lower Charisma. I suggested that you could (note that I said "possibly Charisma." I agree completely that a 3 Intelligence character could have a 20 Charisma. I'm sure I can find some examples in the Bestiary if I wanted. It doesn't change anything I said.
Meanwhile, Mr. Loblaw, you suggest that for him to be less Intelligent, for him to place his skill points in stuff that doesn't suggest Intelligence, and therefor he would make him seem less Intelligent in practice because you are judging the character as a complete whole instead of a random array of 6 numbers. For the most part, I actually would agree with this kind of approach. However, there has been a lot of moaning and groaning about players doing just that, because it somehow "ignores your ability scores", and it goes against the generic 1-line description of the base statistic.I never made that claim and I don't think that it exactly what others are saying either.
For example, one could just as easily Have a Human Paladin with a 7 Intelligence who puts a few ranks into skills like Linguistics, Knowledge (Religion), and Knowledge (Local). The player might explain his 7 Int being from growing up without a steady education, or maybe as a temple orphan who spent all his time doing chores and training to fight the good fight, and then learning more about the world after he goes out to do his thing.That's acceptable to me but it also means that he finds it difficult to grasp new, useful concepts and come up with his own. Not that he can't, but it should not be something that he does easily or often.
However, people argue that this is somehow "cheating" (which leads me to think people just have no understanding of the word), or that this doesn't make you any smarter, and you're still a dirt-stupid drooling neanderthal.What others are considering cheating is when you drop your mental stats to negative modifiers and then play the character as if you are the exact opposite. What is one of the arguments for wizards being able to handle anything that comes their way? Their high intelligence. It is a valid point. When the player and GM think that role playing alone gets you out of having penalties for your low scores, this is where some have said that it is cheating. Would you allow simple role playing to ignore a character's Strength, Dexterity, or Constitution? If not, then you should not allow it for Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma. I don't see it as cheating. I see it as a house rule that negatively impacts the game.
It cannot work both ways. I, however, find no fault in your arguments Mr. Loblaw. Merely pointing out where you and Shadow seem to actually be arguing the exact same things, but you may or may not realize it. Everything can't fit inside of 6 little numbers between 5 and 20.You are absolutely correct. Not everything can fit in those little numbers which is why we have skills and feats. I do think that in some cases Shadow and I are in agreement in what can happen just not on how it can happen. It's more of an implementation thing.
====================
Personally, I would hate having to play a roleplaying game from such a gamist perspective that I would have to play a set of 6 numbers instead of a character. I've been roleplaying since I was 13, and I would have dumped this hobby for something less mechanically restrictive to developing an interesting character and roleplaying than that. Like computer RPGs.For some of us, those 6 numbers are the framework for the character. We build off of that. Just like when an actor looks at a script, he uses the description of his character to act.
|
|
Apparently a player told him she was level 5, played a level 10 character, and when pressed turned out only to have 2 chronicles (meaning she should have been level 1). He's a little less trusting now.
When you see stuff like that, you tend to get a little touchy around the edges. The actions described in this thread are hardly on that level of maliciousness, but the goal is the same - trying to have a "cooler" character than you should.
In the same way, I have a little anecdot. When we played with our ex-DM, we were railroaded to hell. Each important NPC probably had some kind of cultural ritual they shared on week-ends, that implied we were slapped in the head, put on our knees, and told to shut up. Every. One. Of. Them. The wise and gentle king, the evil wizard and his minions, the guard's captain, or the god from a book the DM was reading and the story of which we'd better follow if we wanted to live. NPCdom, always.
The DM had a DMPC, a monk. Our barbarian player kept track of the game's statistics, this is : our kills, our non-lethal victories, our KO's, our deaths/player. After three months, the player looked at the sheet and saw something strange : the monk was the only one who wasn't ko'ed at least one single time, and had 1,5 times the barbarian's kills, which were already impressive. When told this funny fact, the monk was surprisingly put KO on the following fight by a huge gorilla fist. The DMPC in question could have ran seconds before to grapple a evil druid and help my fighter to do so, but didn't do it, not even giving a reason other than "huh ? nope, I don't go lol". Hell yes, there were supposed to be two brown bears charging anyone would approach the druid, making a nice meat sandwich and a poor character crying. The DM, a fellow player and me knew it because we designed this specific part for time and koolness reasons, and this was the only reason the monk didn't come, because he didn't want his mighty character to be hit. So, the DM dominated with NPCs and was "inexplicably" untouchable with his PC.We switched the DM some times later for unrelated reasons (still helped by the previous event, and another one which was so stupid and immature it would probably make you laugh if you supplied me to explain) with my best friend who had a hard time with the rule, but was still approximatically +oo times better than the previous guy at it. The previous DM played and still "plays" today, and when we had to roll new level 1 characters, he came up with a monk. After one session, I became suspicious, calculated the monk's stats and looked at the monk's sheet. He was 19 point build in a 15 point-build, and his character was partially level 4 in purpose of AC and unarmed damage. Then he got another character with feats he shouldn't have, bla bla.
All this to say that yes, cheaters and rules-abuser tend to irritate me. So, reading it's normal to totally ignore one stat because it doesn't help you fight to complain after that this low stat shouldn't give you any penalty is the same kind of things.
I am not saying it's normal to toss aside a stat and expect everyone to react like you didn't. I am saying it's pointless to get upset with the player. He isn't taking a "free advantage" if that's how his game master runs his games.
And I agree with you on this topic. Still...
Only you are upset. Why? Because you are in the wrong game. Switch to the more role oriented game run by someone else and be happy yourself. Or better yet try running a role oriented game to see if these players can have fun doing something other than killing things.
No, I'm not. I'm actually playing in a roleplay-heavy campaign which even happened to convert a huge DPR munchkin into actually loving roleplay. The guy has a 5/5 Int/Wis barbarian with 13 charisma, and always sighed when there was any talk instead of dice rolling, now we can do full roleplay sessions from time to time without a fight and he loves it, even if a good massacre is always the giant cherry on his orgasm cake. My fighter has 13 Int and 7 Wis/Cha, this doesn't stop me to play him like a cunning diplomat, I just have a harder time doing it and need to do my best to get bonuses with skill points, actual nice and well-thought roleplay, and magic help from items like Golden eagle epaulets.
The whole question of this topic was "the impact of low stats", and my answer is = Yes, it exists. So if you want to play a character, make him on your sheet like he should be on his roleplay instead of searching to glean some points in fighting stats, and trust the DM to make you have fun.Personally, I would hate having to play a roleplaying game from such a gamist perspective that I would have to play a set of 6 numbers instead of a character. I've been roleplaying since I was 13, and I would have dumped this hobby for something less mechanically restrictive to developing an interesting character and roleplaying than that. Like computer RPGs.
You are not playing a set of six numbers. You are playing your character. The set of 6 numbers is the base of your character's mechanical skeleton that the system uses to determine your chances to do something BEFORE roleplaying and situation comes into play. Or are you really implying it's absolutely, totally impossible to do the character you want to play and simply estimate how it would translate in 6 stats, like thousands of players did before without having a problem or feeling in a cage ? Or do you just want your character to be able to do everything the player thinks about at the time, just because it's cool, he a hero and rewards originality ? If I want my guy to be robust, I put 14 points in constitution. If I want him to be naturally good and pleasing in social situations, or in the opposite pretty scary, I get the feat for strength-to-intimidation or I just make it 10/12/14 in charisma and I put skill points to represent the efforts put in becoming better, for character development translated to crunch. Your character can't be perfect, so it's normal to consider he didn't got 20 in each stat at level 1. And if you want him to be above average, invest in skills or just begin with more points. Stats ARE your character, but your character isn't the stats.
For some of us, those 6 numbers are the framework for the character. We build off of that. Just like when an actor looks at a script, he uses the description of his character to act.
I view them as the foundation. Starting with a good foundation means you'll have an easier time, while starting with a weaker foundation means you'll have to do more to compensate.
Trying to build a persona based on 6 numbers is silly. Heck, you couldn't even accurate break Intelligence down in six numbers (you would arguably have about 9 different stats just representing "Intelligence"). A script generally tells what the character is supposed to do, and then the actor brings them to life. A script is far more than "15, 14, 13, 8, 12, 10, act it out".
Meanwhile, you have to look at things from a perspective of relativity. Your typical adventurer is going to exceed normalcy almost immediately. When the vast majority of the world is only 1st-3rd level at best (according to the 3E design paradigm) which is the level range where most common hazards seem appropriate in terms of realism, you must compare to the norm to understand the whole.
In short, you do not have to max skills to be good at something. By the standard, a +0 is average (that would be 0 ranks and a +0 modifier) in most skills. Someone with a +1 modifier is above the statistical average of the world. Meanwhile, someone with a +12 is essentially a complete master in the field (1 rank, +3 class skill, +5 ability score, +3 skill focus), rivaled by few.
If our Paladin who grew up training only for holy warfare began at 1st level, he might have placed 1 rank into Diplomacy, Ride, and Knowledge (Religion) bringing him to +8, +6, +2, in those fields. At 2nd level, he drops 2 points into Knowledge (Local) and Linguistics, bringing him to average levels of knowledge about locations and peoples (he can now take 10 and answer basic questions), and he also learns a language, bringing him to 2 languages (as if he was human with a +1 Int modifier). At 3rd level, he dumps a point into Sense Motive, another into Linguistics, and then Intimidate.
Our Paladin is growing. Some would say organically. In all cases, our Paladin has +8 Diplomacy, +6 Ride, +2 Know:Religion, +0 Know:Local, +4 Sense Motive, +5 Intimidate, and he speaks 3 languages.
Our Paladin is no moron. He's no fool. His low Int was a representation of his lack of general education during his youth, which doesn't make him a moron. He's actually far above your typical person at social dealings, an excellent rider, educated in religious rites, very imposing, good at reading people, has a good grasp of general knowledge, and speaks three languages.
If someone insisted that he be played as a slow, dim-witted individual, I would consider them more dim than they were insisting he must be, based on a meaningless number (and I mean meaningless in the sense that there is no scale, or explanation of how dumb someone would have to be to have X intelligence). The closest thing we have to a scale is the modifiers, which are in increments of 5% (mechanically, an 18 is 30% stronger than a 6).
========================
I think, perhaps, most of us would actually get along at the same gaming tables, and are in many ways thinking the same way but in different ways, resulting in confusion and conflict on this message board medium.
|
|
For some of us, those 6 numbers are the framework for the character. We build off of that. Just like when an actor looks at a script, he uses the description of his character to act.I view them as the foundation. Starting with a good foundation means you'll have an easier time, while starting with a weaker foundation means you'll have to do more to compensate.
Trying to build a persona based on 6 numbers is silly. Heck, you couldn't even accurate break Intelligence down in six numbers (you would arguably have about 9 different stats just representing "Intelligence"). A script generally tells what the character is supposed to do, and then the actor brings them to life. A script is far more than "15, 14, 13, 8, 12, 10, act it out".
Meanwhile, you have to look at things from a perspective of relativity. Your typical adventurer is going to exceed normalcy almost immediately. When the vast majority of the world is only 1st-3rd level at best (according to the 3E design paradigm) which is the level range where most common hazards seem appropriate in terms of realism, you must compare to the norm to understand the whole.
In short, you do not have to max skills to be good at something. By the standard, a +0 is average (that would be 0 ranks and a +0 modifier) in most skills. Someone with a +1 modifier is above the statistical average of the world. Meanwhile, someone with a +12 is essentially a complete master in the field (1 rank, +3 class skill, +5 ability score, +3 skill focus), rivaled by few.
If our Paladin who grew up training only for holy warfare began at 1st level, he might have placed 1 rank into Diplomacy, Ride, and Knowledge (Religion) bringing him to +8, +6, +2, in those fields. At 2nd level, he drops 2 points into Knowledge (Local) and Linguistics, bringing him to average levels of knowledge about locations and peoples (he can now take 10 and answer basic questions), and he also learns a language, bringing him to 2 languages (as if he was human with a +1 Int...
...at least you are consistent.
|
|
I think, perhaps, most of us would actually get along at the same gaming tables, and are in many ways thinking the same way but in different ways, resulting in confusion and conflict on this message board medium.
Considering how I agree with most of your last message (except on the second paragraph which IMHO is taken the wrong direction : here, the script isn't a set of numbers a character has to act, the numbers are how well the actor plays the script ; which makes me believe there is a misundertanding about the idea of "someone playing the stats" - we don't ask people to play the stats on their sheet, but to have on their sheet the character they play, which is a big difference), I think you're perfectly right on this one.