@Min
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.
Ok, do you realize you are making two assumptions here. First you are assuming that someone has malicious intent in buying down a stat. And secondly you are assuming there is a baseline established for what level of 'coolness' you should have.
Coolness seems fairly vague. If I am understanding what you mean by it then it's wrong. If you mean personality then no rule is limiting what your character can act like. If you mean concept then the game modifiers will punish the character with failure by themselves.
Did someone suggest the human and favored class bonus apply after the minimum skill point rule? I am not positive... but I think it applies after all modifiers are added up (not just the negative ones).
As for intent, I tend to assume people are being honest and have good intentions. Sometimes I am wrong, but more often I am right.
|
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.
You don't have to play the stats.
However people will perceive you based on your stats.
You can charging into melee combat with a low strength and base attack if you want to. No one is stopping you from playing it that way.
You can play it however you want.
Now the outcomes of how you play are based on your stats.
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?
Actually, yes. I am saying that it's impossible to have a character that is defined entirely by 6 numbers. It didn't work in previous editions and it doesn't work now. Versions prior to 3rd didn't even have a decent method for handling anything outside of combat and thief skills, other than perhaps the very generalized "roll-under ability" mechanics, which in no way are conductive to actually playing a character that's more than a smattering of numbers and a THAC0 table.
That's not saying that it actively prevented it. I've noted before I can roleplay with LEGOs and action figures, or even CHESS if I wanted to. I could play out an RPG with my younger brother using nothing but some of his Star Wars figures and a few pennies to flip to decide outcomes of contested things. That doesn't mean it actually helps. In fact, forcing someone to play a particular way, using particular personalities, based on a number, is kind of the opposite of how I view a roleplaying game. That seems about as brilliant as requiring pre-determined dialog options akin to computer based RPGs.
GM: Ok, the drow priestess offers to parlay. She says that she'll tell you the location of the kidnapped victims if you will let her go.
Player 1: Ok, I would like to choose dialog option number 4, out of my set of roleplaying options.
Player 2: But dude, isn't option number four typically the evil option?
Player 1: No, I shuffled my dialog options so it doesn't automatically set them to good, selfish, violent.
Player 2: Oh, that's a good idea. You're a great roleplayer!
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.
I don't see how you would take anything I've written and get "do everything the player thinks about at the time, just because it's cool". I've noted, multiple times, that this is not the case. In fact, my stance on the matter is that the character is a whole, not merely a set of 6 numbers. Those six numbers modify and influence the way the character actually is in the world around them, but does not actually determine who or how that character is in that world.
You describe, quite well actually, the process of using the rules to describe the character you're talking about. You're putting your stats where you feel they will do the most good, and you are considering the capabilities of the whole.
You might have a character with a 14 Intelligence because while you consider him to be mostly average in most fields, you do plan for him to have a wider variety of skills. A Fighter that has a 14 Int and puts his favored class bonus in skills gets 5 ranks per level. You might be playing this character as being overly smart. Maybe he's actually fairly average intellectually. However, it gets you the ranks that you need to fill out his character concept, which may include Intimidate, Perception, Stealth, Survival, and Sense Motive.
|
You don't have to play the stats.
However people will perceive you based on your stats.
You can charging into melee combat with a low strength and base attack if you want to. No one is stopping you from playing it that way.
You can play it however you want.
Now the outcomes of how you play are based on your stats.
I fail to see where and how I wasn't able to express this exact opinion, but I guess it's one of many disadvantages of using a foreign language in an argument. So, +1 for your post. :)
|
|
@Min
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.
Ok, do you realize you are making two assumptions here. First you are assuming that someone has malicious intent in buying down a stat. And secondly you are assuming there is a baseline established for what level of 'coolness' you should have.
Coolness seems fairly vague. If I am understanding what you mean by it then it's wrong. If you mean personality then no rule is limiting what your character can act like. If you mean concept then the game modifiers will punish the character with failure by themselves.
Did someone suggest the human and favored class bonus apply after the minimum skill point rule? I am not positive... but I think it applies after all modifiers are added up (not just the negative ones).
As for intent, I tend to assume people are being honest and have good intentions. Sometimes I am wrong, but more often I am right.
Well...malicious isn't the right word. That is like saying someone who eats ice cream does so because they are trying to become fat. It ignores the other benefits of Ice Cream.
When you make your character, you pick stats in order to make the best character you can for what you want to do.
If I want to make a super awesome character, I want to put all 18's on my sheet. That would be awesome. Once when we did rolls a player at our table got really close to all 18s. His character was awesome.
But, generally you aren't that lucky. Generally you have some lower scores you have to put somewhere.
Now, is it malicious to not want to have negative effects for these low scores? To have these low scores be treated the same as the high scores?
Nope.
But if you did play that way, the scores become meaningless.
The person who rolled the all 18 set IS better at things than the person who didn't.
While that may be inconvenient for your character concept, it is still accurate.
Now fortunately there are magic items that raise ability scores and such, should you be willing to invest in them.
But when you aren't willing to invest in them, but demand to be treated the same...while not malicious it is silly.
|
|
Lots of good things.
Well, again, I almost wholly agree. Except for the part about the system not being able to withstand a character in 6 stats.
There is always a way of doing it, and when it isn't possible, it's houserule/class variant/interpretation time. I wouldn't mind a terrorist alchemist using charisma instead of intelligence for the crunch, and a sorcerer could always take the wildblooded lineage that allows him to use Intelligence for his spells if he wants to play the shy naturally gifted and frail farmer boy.The system isn't perfect, and I guess this is why we see more and more variants to allow more concepts to be playable without feeling frustrated ; but I never had a hard time figuring the stats for a character, neither having fun and feeling like my character is developping.
|
|
I imagine it kind of like this.I'm still amused at the thought of me and ciretose at the same table.I really don't think we would have a problem.
I can't think of an argument where you have been that far from my position.
Or this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYxMCALVXZsI was there, it was awesome.
But when you aren't willing to invest in them, but demand to be treated the same...while not malicious it is silly.
Who on this thread is saying that? Nobody is demanding the low stat be treated exactly as a high stat. Did I miss someone? I know you haven't read my posts or you would know it wasn't me. The game has penalties for every low stat. A low Int means fewer skills and difficulty with intelligence based tests. The only way that could have NO effect on the game is if your game master let people put any number of skills down the players wanted and ignored the need for any intelligence based tests.
Who on this thread is saying that? Nobody is demanding the low stat be treated exactly as a high stat. Did I miss someone?
But when you aren't willing to invest in them, but demand to be treated the same...while not malicious it is silly.
Yep, you missed it. Ashiel and Kamulguru both posted with regards to CHA that until you interacted with someone over time, you had to treat the High CHA and Low CHA the same, and that if they had spent points on Diplomacy, then it became a diplomacy check and the CHA was meaningless, because it was invisible and undetectable to anyone in the game world. They also stated that giving any preference one way or the other prior to interacting with the characters over time was metagaming. They also stated the same for someone with Low vs High INT, you are not supposed to know someone's the drooling village idiot with 5 INT until you've interacted with him over time. You can't tell he's an idiot just because he happens to be pulling (out) on a sliding door instead of sliding it, trying to get it to open and wondering why it won't open.
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.
Foundation may be a better word. I think we're both on the same page here.
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.
The perspective on stats doesn't change though. You're next point does:
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).
If your paladin has a +1 modifier to his Intelligence, he is no moron. He can still be played without much common sense though (I think it would be hard for a paladin but not impossible). Idiot does not have to mean: completely stupid. It could mean: consistently makes stupid decisions. I'm sure we can all think of someone who is really smart but seems to make a lot of bad decisions.
========================
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.
I agree with this completely. There are very few people on these boards I would not want to game with.
Yep, you missed it. Ashiel and Kamulguru both posted with regards to CHA that until you interacted with someone over time, you had to treat the High CHA and Low CHA the same, and that if they had spent points on Diplomacy, then it became a diplomacy check and the CHA was meaningless, because it was invisible and undetectable to anyone in the game world. They also stated that giving any preference one way or the other prior to interacting with the characters over time was metagaming. They also stated the same for someone with Low vs High INT, you are not supposed to know someone's the drooling village idiot with 5 INT until you've interacted with him over time. You can't tell he's an idiot just because he happens to be pulling (out) on a sliding door instead of sliding it, trying to get it to open and wondering why it won't open.Who on this thread is saying that? Nobody is demanding the low stat be treated exactly as a high stat. Did I miss someone?
But when you aren't willing to invest in them, but demand to be treated the same...while not malicious it is silly.
What mdt means to say, since he's talking about my posts, is that both Ashiel and Kamelguru posted in regards to metagaming Charisma, and that the penalties applied to the social checks when individuals actually interacted, and thus a low-Charisma character may actually be just as good if the appropriate amount of investment has taken place, whereas the high-Charisma character may be fair but not that great at it because the appropriate amount of investment never took place.
In short, the guy with the -2 Cha and 2 ranks, as a class skill, has a net +3. The guy with a +2 Cha and 0 ranks has a net +2. The guy with the 7 Cha is better because of the investment in this aspect of his persona, whereas the guy with the +2 is merely coasting on his natural gifts and has been surpassed by someone with more experience.
Kamelguru, and myself, just don't like metagaming. We don't demand to see the statistics of every NPC that we come across to decide how we want to act towards them before we've even met them. Likewise, it's more likely that even if the GM told us what their Charisma was, it'd probably have 0% effect on our initial mood towards the NPC before the NPC actually says or does something that would upset us or impressed us. That's more or less our point. We like roleplaying, not metagaming.
If your paladin has a +1 modifier to his Intelligence, he is no moron. He can still be played without much common sense though (I think it would be hard for a paladin but not impossible). Idiot does not have to mean: completely stupid. It could mean: consistently makes stupid decisions. I'm sure we can all think of someone who is really smart but seems to make a lot of bad decisions.
Which is my point. You see, the dictionary definition of common sense describes it as reason. Intelligence governs reason, if you want to treat descriptions with no game effect as some sort of absolute law, then you find that the mental scores have a lot of overlap.
common sense
–noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.
In other words, Intelligence, by definition would apply to this. Meanwhile, Wisdom says it applies to common sense (which is literally the domain of Intelligence as described before Wisdom), intuition, awareness, and willpower. Meanwhile, it also says that anyone with a Wisdom of 0 is incapable of rational thought. Those paying attention will notice that would ALSO fall under Intelligence.
ra·tion·al
/ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
Again, we come back to the ability to reason.
We can see that even the descriptions of the ability scores aren't consistent with whatever the heck they are supposed to do, and Charisma is vaguer than hell.
So the descriptions of the mental ability scores aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and have no in-game effect. One could not describe their character as lacking in reason and have a high Intelligence by the measure of several posters here, nor could they do so with Wisdom. Meanwhile, apparently others are saying that you could have a low Intelligence but that would make you stupid, even if your Wisdom was higher and you said that was what determined your ability to reason, while others seem to think that your Charisma score is tattooed on your forhead to let NPCs to know to treat you different for no real reason at all.
This argument isn't overly complicated, but it has gone on for quite a while. :(
|
|
What mdt means to say, since he's talking about my posts, is that both Ashiel and Kamelguru posted in regards to metagaming Charisma, and that the penalties applied to the social checks when individuals actually interacted, and thus a low-Charisma character may actually be just as good if the appropriate amount of investment has taken place, whereas the high-Charisma character may be fair but not that great at it because the appropriate amount of investment never took place.
You keep using this word, I do not think it means what you think it means.
"Metagaming is a broad term usually used to define any strategy, action or method used in a game which transcends a prescribed ruleset, uses external factors to affect the game, or goes beyond the supposed limits or environment set by the game."
So, using a skill beyond the scope of it's described use could be considered metagaming, but you are advocating that.
It comes down to something you keep avoiding. Either the ability score is the default or the skill is the default.
You can't have both be the default. It is like saying I'm going to work my arm muscles exclusively and just do a handstand whenever I need to jump.
We all agree scenarios occur outside of the rules, particularly in social settings. What most of us are saying is that charisma is a factor the DM considers when controlling these interactions.
What you are saying is it shouldn't be.
You keep saying that skills replace ability scores, and they don't. They improve aspects of ability scores. They are learned... well... skills.
Your Paladin with a 7 intelligence but ranks in religion still has a 70 IQ, but he invested a lot of time learning about the gods.
He knows a lot about a thing, but still has 70 IQ.
How does that play in the game? It generally doesn't. NPCs will be able to perceive some things over time. Certain situations that fall outside of framework may be intelligence dependent. But it doesn't come up much.
But what you keep advocating is that anything you want to do in any context can be shoehorned into whatever skill you happen to have ranks in.
For example, .
your example.
As to what the NPC's Charisma is vs how you react...ahem.
NO ONE HAS SAID A PC HAS TO DO ANYTHING!
It isn't about what the PC has to do, it is about what guidelines the DM should use when interacting with the PC so that the DM isn't being completely arbitrary.
The PC will get a description and can do with it as they wish. A good DM will try to play that charisma appropriately, but the players can do whatever they want. They are run by people who can think and decide for themselves.
If those people are dumber/less wise than their characters, as a GM I may point things out to them if they are about to do something dumb. If they are less charismatic than their character, I may interpret the rude thing they say in the most favorable light. May being the operative word as I'm not ever going to tell a PC what to do, since the whole game is the PC being able to decide what they want to do, in the framework of a game with rules.
As the GM, I'm running the NPCs but I'm not a PC. I should try to act as they would act, make decisions as I think they would make decisions, etc...and to do that I am taking into consideration what the NPC knows about the PC, including how they appear, personal magnetism, etc...
I can't diplomacy a PC into being my friend, for example. The PC will do as they wish. If they try to act like they didn't fail the bluff check, I may politely ask them to explain why they are acting as they are, but it isn't "God Master". People can do what they want.
The issue we are all having with your interpretation is that it amounts to you being able to ignore ability scores and arbitrarily pick any skill you have ranks in to accomplish a goal, as you described doing in your example, ignoring the rules laid out in the skill along the way. You can say over and over again "entertainment purposes" but it was an example you posted in a debate like this to show how you roleplay without having to invest in ability scores.
And in it you ignored a ton of rules laid out in each skill...because you had to ignore them to make the skill fit your narrative.
You want your 7 Int Paladin to be considered a scholar and your 7 charisma fighter to be considered charming, but you don't want to invest in the headband that could make them that way.
And why do you want this. Because you want to put a higher score in another area and enjoy that benefit as well.
So the biggest bone of contention with Ashiel is what effect charisma has before a skill is used in interaction?
Well maybe I can help... From the way I see it there are three levels of interaction: Limited interaction where the people involved really don't interact much past saying hello or asking the price of a quart of milk. Normal interaction where people chat casually with each other or a group. Or involved interaction where your attention is focused on someone specific.
I will use a noble ball as my example and see if everyone agrees with me.
Everyone at the ball is dressed up nicely (or the guards probably wouldn't have let you in). As your characters enter the ball your descriptions and those of the NPCs are read out to everyone. This is limited interaction and charisma is unimportant at this stage. Your characters decide to mingle a bit to get a feel for the crowd. At this point you're engaging in various conversations with a variety of people nothing specific just idle chatter and gossip. This is normal interaction and involves charisma checks (since no specific skill or target has been declared yet). After a brief exchange of pleasantries with a minor prince your characters both decide they want to leave the party with him. Now it moves into involved interaction as you both ply the prince with your diplomacy skill. One of you impresses him with your social graces and wit and he decides to spend some time with just you...
This is how it works in my games. Limited doesn't involve charisma at all. Normal involves a charisma check. Involved requires a skill roll.
Limited interaction is walking past someone on the street or seeing a hot guy in a shopping center. No charisma because you don't know what he is truly like yet.
Normal interaction is casual every day communication with someone. If you often stop to chat with that guy in the shopping center without actually trying to impress him. Then you find out all he likes to do is drone on endlessly about the latest thing that irritates him (a low charisma example). This is a charisma check.
Involved interaction is if you are actively trying to influence someone with a skill such as diplomacy. Hey you decide you want to date him anyway, so now you are actively attempting to get him interested in you. This requires a diplomacy check.
|
|
Some good stuff, one issue
I agree with most of what you are saying, except the diplomacy part.
That isn't what diplomacy does, if you read the rule as written.
This is my personal pet peeve. Others feel less strongly about it or disagree.
Many people want "Diplomacy" the skill to equal "All conversations I may have, unless my score is low then go with whatever my highest skill is..." however Diplomacy the skill:
1. Requires "1 minute of continuous interaction" if you want to "influence a creature’s attitude". Attitude is defined as a scale ranging from "Hostile" to "Helpful." and "A creature’s attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations." So you can make someone hostile indifferent, or someone indifferent helpful.
In my world, helpful doesn't mean enamored. The clerk at the store is more helpful when I am polite. Doesn't mean she thinks I am a born leader with a magnetic personality.
2. With it "You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check" means that Diplomacy has no effect on initial attitude, since that would be a circular argument.
3. "Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion)." Meaning the clerk will be helpful for awhile because I was polite, but forget about me in a few house.
Side Note: I love how everyone always says GM discretion says it could be longer to this, and overlook that it can be shorter too...
4. Diplomacy can be used to make requests, if they are indifferent, however "Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature’s values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."
Examples given for requests don't include anything remotely related to "Being my friend" or "Thinking I'm cool". They do include "Give simple advice or directions" on one end of the scale and "Give aid that could result in punishment".
Note the words "Give aid". All of them include "Give" and "Reveal". None of them include "Like" or "Friend".
Now the general follow up question asked is "Well how do you make friends"
To which I answer, circumstances.
Save a puppy, people like people who save puppies. Buy the bar a round, people like people who buy them things. Save the town from (insert evil here). People like to be saved.
You can talk to people even if you have a low charisma. They aren't going to view you as a pariah if you have a 7 charisma. Awkward, maybe (depending on how you decided to describe your charisma) but not a pariah.
But when you and the 20 Charisma bard are in the same room, the 20 charisma bard seems really awesome and you seem...meh.
Like I said, Dos Equis guy vs Moe from the Simpsons.
But people liked Moe when he made the Flaming Moe, thanks to the circumstances of being the guy who has an awesome drink.
When you say "doesn't involve charisma at all" I wonder when you are running NPCs do you consider what how the NPC perceives the heroes before they meet them? Do you consider who they may approach first? Do you consider the setting and the prejudices that may exist for some races?
I suspect you do consider all of these thing. And Charisma is a factor that would be a part of the decisions you make as a DM.
What mdt means to say...
...is exactly what he said in his post. Not what Ashiel prefers to believe I said. It's similar to our disagreement. Ashiel prefers to believe that Charisma is not actually part of her character, and that it is not perceivable to NPCs. Since the rule book itself contradicts this, it's just Ashiel's preference for his house rules. Unfortunately, he prefers to state it as fact and call everyone else metagamers if they do not agree with him.
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").
I can't find my 1E stuff but considering I taught myself, and the other gamers I played with, how to play the game by reading the rules over and over it had to have been written down somewhere.
I did find it in my 2e PHB though, and that is the general way I create a "persona based on 6 numbers". This is how I've been doing it for as long as I can remember playing. Especially with rolled stats, I would look at those 6, and come up with an explanation for why it had the number it had.
What the Numbers Mean
Str 8
Dex 14
Con 13
Int 13
Wis 7
Chr 6...Here are just two different ways these numbers could be interpreted.
1) Although Rath is in good health (Con 13), he's not very strong (Str 8) because he's just plain lazy-he never wanted to exercise as a youth and now it's too late. His low Wisdom and Charisma scores (7, 6) show that he lacks the common sense to apply himself properly and projects a slothful, "I'm not going to bother" attitude (which tends to irritate others). Fortunately, Rath's natural wit (Int 13) and Dexterity (14) keep him from being a total loss.
Thus you might play Rath as an irritating, smart-alecky twerp forever ducking just out of range of those who want to squash him.2) Rath has several good points-he has studied hard (Int 13) and practiced his manual skills (Dex 14). Unfortunately, his Strength is low (8) from a lack of exercise (all those hours spent reading books). Despite that Rath's health is still good (Con 13). His low Wisdom and Charisma (7, 6) are a result of his lack of contact and involvement with people outside the realm of academics.
Looking at the scores this way, you could play Rath as a kindly, naive, and shy professorial type who's a good tinkerer, always fiddling with new ideas and inventions.
And again it was emphasized a little bit in 3.x
Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma
You can use your character's Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores to guide you in roleplaying your character. Here is some background (just guidelines) about what these scores can mean.A smart character (one with high Intelligence) is curious, knowledgeable, and prone to using big words. A character with high Intelligence but low Wisdom may be smart but absentminded, or knowledgeable but lacking in common sense. A character with high Intelligence but low Charisma may be a know-it-all or a reclusive scholar. A smart character lacking in both Wisdom and Charisma may put her foot in her mouth often.
A character with low Intelligence mispronounces and misuses words, has trouble following directions, or fails to get the joke.
A character with high Wisdom may be sensible, serene, "in tune," alert, or centered. A character with high Wisdom but low Intelligence may be aware, but simple. A character with high Wisdom but low Charisma knows enough to speak carefully and may become an advisor (or "power behind the throne") rather than a leader. The character lacking in both Intelligence and Charisma is uncouth and unsophisticated.
A character with a low Wisdom score may be rash, imprudent, irresponsible, or "out of it."
A character with high Charisma may be attractive, striking, personable, and confident. A character with high Charisma but low Intelligence can usually pass herself off as knowledgeable, until she meets a true expert. A charismatic character with low Wisdom may be popular, but she doesn't know who her real friends are. A charismatic character lacking in both Intelligence and Wisdom is likely to be shallow and unaware of other's feelings.
A character with low Charisma may be reserved, gruff, rude, fawning, or simply nondescript.
(emphasis mine for the sake of this discussion)
Now I know these are not RAW, but they show how simple it is with just a little understanding of the RAI behind high or low stats how they can be interpreted.
If I had a low Int Pally, like in your example, I would play him as someone who tries to ACT smart by using what he had learned, but as soon as it was outside his scope of experience he would try to find a way to compare it to what he knew to help him understand it.
I've known plenty of people in the Army that had Knowledge, but not Intelligence. They could spit out some stupid fact they had memorized from some board study guide, but they didn't know how to apply it when the actual situations arose.
If your paladin has a +1 modifier to his Intelligence, he is no moron. He can still be played without much common sense though (I think it would be hard for a paladin but not impossible). Idiot does not have to mean: completely stupid. It could mean: consistently makes stupid decisions. I'm sure we can all think of someone who is really smart but seems to make a lot of bad decisions.Which is my point. You see, the dictionary definition of common sense describes it as reason. Intelligence governs reason, if you want to treat descriptions with no game effect as some sort of absolute law, then you find that the mental scores have a lot of overlap.
common sense
–noun
sound practical judgment that is independent of specialized knowledge, training, or the like; normal native intelligence.In other words, Intelligence, by definition would apply to this. Meanwhile, Wisdom says it applies to common sense (which is literally the domain of Intelligence as described before Wisdom), intuition, awareness, and willpower. Meanwhile, it also says that anyone with a Wisdom of 0 is incapable of rational thought. Those paying attention will notice that would ALSO fall under Intelligence.
Dictionary.com wrote:
ra·tion·al
/ˈræʃənl, ˈræʃnl/ Show Spelled[rash-uh-nl, rash-nl] Show IPA
–adjective
1. agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2. having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3. being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.Again, we come back to the ability to reason.
We can see that even the descriptions of the ability scores aren't consistent with whatever the heck they are supposed to do, and Charisma is vaguer than hell.
That's all fine and dandy but since we're discussing Pathfinder stats, then we should use the Pathfinder definitions. You may have noticed that many times I, and a few others have said, if you want to play someone who is very smart and yet still an idiot, you should drop Wisdom. This is consistent with both the definitions you provided as well as the Pathfinder definitions.
So the descriptions of the mental ability scores aren't worth the paper they're printed on, and have no in-game effect. One could not describe their character as lacking in reason and have a high Intelligence by the measure of several posters here, nor could they do so with Wisdom. Meanwhile, apparently others are saying that you could have a low Intelligence but that would make you stupid, even if your Wisdom was higher and you said that was what determined your ability to reason, while others seem to think that your Charisma score is tattooed on your forhead to let NPCs to know to treat you different for no real reason at all.
I don't think that's what others are saying. I can assure you that is not what I am saying. A low Intelligence does make you stupid. You are not playing a smart character with a low Intelligence. You may be able to specialize in some areas but you are not smart. You are specialized. In high school, I had a next door neighbor who was mentally handicapped. He was 2 years older than me but he was 9 years behind in comprehension. In other words, his Intelligence was low. He had this amazing ability to disassemble an engine, figure out what was wrong, and reassemble it. I have no idea what he was doing or how he could figure it out. I do know that he spent a lot of time focused on that one area.
Let me give you an example of the difference between Intelligence and Wisdom: "Intelligence is knowing that a tomato is a fruit and Wisdom is understanding not to put it in a fruit salad."
No one, not a single person, has suggested that Charisma is tattooed on their forehead. They are saying, correctly, that you can see who is more naturally Charismatic. That doesn't mean who is more likable. It means someone with more Charisma. And the NPCs will initially treat you differently because of this. No one has advocated starting the initial reaction lower because your Charisma is lower. They have said that certain party members might get more attention from NPCs based on their Charisma scores, for right or wrong. It is up to the PC to use his skills to adjust the initial attitude.
Now I know these are not RAW, but they show how simple it is with just a little understanding of the RAI behind high or low stats how they can be interpreted.
If I had a low Int Pally, like in your example, I would play him as someone who tries to ACT smart by using what he had learned, but as soon as it was outside his scope of experience he would try to find a way to compare it to what he knew to help him understand it.
Emphasis mind. I agree with all that is emphasized here.
You would play the Paladin like that, and I think that is awesome. That sounds like a perfectly great way to roleplay your character. Welcome to the team, here's your membership card, let's roll some dice! :DNow the thing I would note, however, is that's how you would play it. That's not the right way to play it. Nor is it the wrong way to play it. That's a way to play it. Now if the guy next to you wanted to take the exact same scores, and interpret them in different ways, that is every bit as much his right to do so as it is yours to play it your way. There's no mechanical advantage or disadvantaged gained. Only roleplaying opportunities.
I've known plenty of people in the Army that had Knowledge, but not Intelligence. They could spit out some stupid fact they had memorized from some board study guide, but they didn't know how to apply it when the actual situations arose.
Sounds good. Let's grab that and run with it in D&D.
Player: "My knowledge check to identify the outsider is a 16. What does my character know?"
GM: "You know that it's an imp, and you need either a blessed weapon or a silver one to hurt it effectively."
Player: "Ok, I'll run over here and grab the silver candlestick holder on the dining table, and then use it as a club."
GM: "No you won't."
Player: "Wait...what?"
GM: "You know what the Imp is weak against, but you're not smart enough to actually apply that information. So you won't pick up the candlestick, you will continue to attack the imp with your sword, even though that doesn't work."
Player: "What are you getting that?"
GM: "Because that's what the rules say right heeeeeerrrrreee. *points to the description of Intelligence*. So there."
That's all fine and dandy but since we're discussing Pathfinder stats, then we should use the Pathfinder definitions. You may have noticed that many times I, and a few others have said, if you want to play someone who is very smart and yet still an idiot, you should drop Wisdom. This is consistent with both the definitions you provided as well as the Pathfinder definitions.
The rulebook's in english. English definitions apply. I'm not going to ignore what the actual words in the description mean, just because those words are in my favorite hobby manual. That's. Just. Stupid.
Unless it directly specifies otherwise, it is using actual words to describe something. It is literally a description of what the ability score theoretically entails, using existing words, not game mechanics.
Sounds good. Let's grab that and run with it in D&D.
Player: "My knowledge check to identify the outsider is a 16. What does my character know?"
GM: "You know that it's an imp, and you need either a blessed weapon or a silver one to hurt it effectively."
Player: "Ok, I'll run over here and grab the silver candlestick holder on the dining table, and then use it as a club."
A) Does your stupid fighter have ranks in appraise so he can scan the room and identify the candlestick as being silver, and not steel or pewter or some other shiny white metal? If not, how does he know it's silver? That's metagaming Ashiel.
B) Did he make a perception roll to even notice the candlestick?
C) The fighter makes his knowledge check about the imp. However, he hasn't taken craft (arms), doesn't have Knowledge (Engineering). Does he know that his mithral dagger will work? Make an INT check, oh, he failed, no he doesn't use his dagger because he doesn't realize that mithral works as silver. Now, if someone tells him, or it's actually come up in character before (say last week when they fought were-rats) then that's different, but unless it's come up in game, he needs an INT check to know Mithral = Silver, or a skill check if he has the right skill.
|
|
Now I know these are not RAW, but they show how simple it is with just a little understanding of the RAI behind high or low stats how they can be interpreted.
If I had a low Int Pally, like in your example, I would play him as someone who tries to ACT smart by using what he had learned, but as soon as it was outside his scope of experience he would try to find a way to compare it to what he knew to help him understand it.
Emphasis mind. I agree with all that is emphasized here.
You would play the Paladin like that, and I think that is awesome. That sounds like a perfectly great way to roleplay your character. Welcome to the team, here's your membership card, let's roll some dice! :DNow the thing I would note, however, is that's how you would play it. That's not the right way to play it. Nor is it the wrong way to play it. That's a way to play it. Now if the guy next to you wanted to take the exact same scores, and interpret them in different ways, that is every bit as much his right to do so as it is yours to play it your way. There's no mechanical advantage or disadvantaged gained. Only roleplaying opportunities.
I've known plenty of people in the Army that had Knowledge, but not Intelligence. They could spit out some stupid fact they had memorized from some board study guide, but they didn't know how to apply it when the actual situations arose.Sounds good. Let's grab that and run with it in D&D.
Player: "My knowledge check to identify the outsider is a 16. What does my character know?"
GM: "You know that it's an imp, and you need either a blessed weapon or a silver one to hurt it effectively."
Player: "Ok, I'll run over here and grab the silver candlestick holder on the dining table, and then use it as a club."
GM: "No you won't."
Player: "Wait...what?"
GM: "You know what the Imp is weak against, but you're not smart enough to actually apply that information. So you won't pick up the candlestick, you...
What a lovely strawman.
That's all fine and dandy but since we're discussing Pathfinder stats, then we should use the Pathfinder definitions. You may have noticed that many times I, and a few others have said, if you want to play someone who is very smart and yet still an idiot, you should drop Wisdom. This is consistent with both the definitions you provided as well as the Pathfinder definitions.The rulebook's in english. English definitions apply. I'm not going to ignore what the actual words in the description mean, just because those words are in my favorite hobby manual. That's. Just. Stupid.
Unless it directly specifies otherwise, it is using actual words to describe something. It is literally a description of what the ability score theoretically entails, using existing words, not game mechanics.
So, rather than use a word that was close to what they wanted and then defined it, they should have looked through every English-language dictionary on earth to be sure than all of the interpretations of the word in question exactly meant what they wanted rather than just, you know, saying what the stat means in this context?
That's. Just. Stupid.
I mean, how does that work, then, for people who play in a different language where, perhaps, the words being used are more nuanced than in English?
I'm pretty sure the PRD and Core Books both go on to show what the designers mean by their stats -- it's been quoted at you a whole bunch, even. "Intelligence" the attribute means what the PRD says, and not Webster's.
The rulebook's in english. English definitions apply. I'm not going to ignore what the actual words in the description mean, just because those words are in my favorite hobby manual. That's. Just. Stupid.
If I find a different definition for "attack action" in the dictionary, can I bring that into your game?
Quoting the dictionary for what an ability score stands for is silly. Reading the text they provide for what they meant? Probably the right idea.
Some good stuff, one issueI agree with most of what you are saying, except the diplomacy part.
That isn't what diplomacy does, if you read the rule as written.
This is my personal pet peeve. Others feel less strongly about it or disagree.
Many people want "Diplomacy" the skill to equal "All conversations I may have, unless my score is low then go with whatever my highest skill is..." however Diplomacy the skill...
First yes getting someone to like you is exactly the same as improving their attitude toward you. NO I am NOT trying to say "all conversations" talk about straw men. Perhaps you don't own any of the old 3.5 splat books where they are frequently discussing new ways to use skills. Diplomacy is the perfect skill to use for situations involving social graces and wit. Also I did NOT say even once this skill lasts forever. I am well aware it has a duration. In this case I allow it to last as long as the social encounter lasts and it's effects linger only as long as nothing breaks the effect.
The rulebook's in english. English definitions apply. I'm not going to ignore what the actual words in the description mean, just because those words are in my favorite hobby manual. That's. Just. Stupid.If I find a different definition for "attack action" in the dictionary, can I bring that into your game?
Quoting the dictionary for what an ability score stands for is silly. Reading the text they provide for what they meant? Probably the right idea.
Nope. Attack Action is a defined mechanic. It is not a description of a mechanic. Lemme try to be a clear as possible, to avoid confusion.
Attack
Making an attack is a standard action.Melee Attacks: With a normal melee weapon, you can strike any opponent within 5 feet. (Opponents within 5 feet are considered adjacent to you.) Some melee weapons have reach, as indicated in their descriptions. With a typical reach weapon, you can strike opponents 10 feet away, but you can't strike adjacent foes (those within 5 feet).
Ok. We can see where it declares that making an attack is a standard action. Going on, we can see where the rules describe the different nuances of the attack action, where, when, and how the action varies. As the rules go on, it describes how certain factors modify the outcome of the action, and so forth.
"Attack Action" is something that is defined within the rules, and has a mechanical effect. The attack action functions the same, regardless. I can describe my attack action however I like during the game, but the mechanical aspect does not change. I could describe kicking a skeleton in the leg to knock it off balance before fallowing through with my mace to shatter it. In mechanical terms I may only be using a single attack action with my mace, but fluffing it to be more dynamic is sound. It doesn't change the fact that it is merely an attack roll with the appropriate weapon.
Meanwhile, you have descriptions of game mechanics. Such as...
For some, there is only rage. In the ways of their people, in the fury of their passion, in the howl of battle, conflict is all these brutal souls know. Savages, hired muscle, masters of vicious martial techniques, they are not soldiers or professional warriors—they are the battle possessed, creatures of slaughter and spirits of war. Known as barbarians, these warmongers know little of training, preparation, or the rules of warfare; for them, only the moment exists, with the foes that stand before them and the knowledge that the next moment might hold their death. They possess a sixth sense in regard to danger and the endurance to weather all that might entail. These brutal warriors might rise from all walks of life, both civilized and savage, though whole societies embracing such philosophies roam the wild places of the world. Within barbarians storms the primal spirit of battle, and woe to those who face their rage.
This description describes game mechanics. It, however, has no game effect. You do not have to play your barbarian as someone who is savage, or hired muscle, or "not a soldier or professional warriors", or as a "creature of slaughter and spirits of war". These are merely flavorful descriptions of the mechanics that are in play, but are not mechanics themselves.
Someone can describe their Barbarian Rage as a deep resolve, where they push everything else out of their minds and are filled with heroic strength and resolve. The mechanical effect is still +4 Str, +4 Con, +2 vs Will saves. That's the difference between fluff and crunch. The fluff is description, the crunch is fact. The fact is, no matter how you flavor it, rage gives set effects.
No matter how you describe Intelligence, Intelligence the stat gives set effects. The description for the ability scores is no less fluff than the description for the Barbarian. It is merely a fancifully worded description of a game mechanic.
It is this anti-roleplaying way of thinking that leads to people crying that you must have a Samurai Class when Barbarian or Fighter would work just fine for making a Samurai themed character.
==========
On a side note, I won't pretend that people on this board cannot comprehend this, as my 13 year old brother can. Trying to say that that understanding the words that are used to describe the game mechanics is wrong is asinine in the extreme. They are used to describe the mechanics, and in this case the ability scores, because they have meaning. That's the whole idea behind language, as well as words. They mean things.
When you say something is a measure of reason and intelligence, then turn around and say something else is a measure of reason and intelligence, then either they must both be, or there is a conflict. Fluff, ultimately, is mutable and has nothing to do with the mechanics of the game anymore so than the barbarian's class description determines the effects of his Rage.
EDIT:
Bottom row of panels = Cha as reaction mechanic.
Hahaha, nice. I love your posts, TriOmegaZero. ^-^
If I find a different definition for "attack action" in the dictionary, can I bring that into your game?
Quoting the dictionary for what an ability score stands for is silly. Reading the text they provide for what they meant? Probably the right idea.
Though, if you came to the game and mentioned that the definition of a word in the fluff had multiple meanings, I would indeed listen to your take on it.
I have to agree with the others Ashiel... Intelligence means what the rules say it does nothing more. Although you aren't the only one here guilty of assigning it meaning it doesn't have.
~looks directly at the person who seems to think Int x 10 = IQ~
Which it obviously isn't.
I have to agree with the others Ashiel... Intelligence means what the rules say it does nothing more. Although you aren't the only one here guilty of assigning it meaning it doesn't have.
~looks directly at the person who seems to think Int x 10 = IQ~
Which it obviously isn't.
People have said it's a decent yardstick to measure how smart your character is, not that it was an exact equality.
Would you side with those who say someone with a 3 int (minimally sentient by the rules) can speak fluently and carry on normal conversations with an 18 int person and nobody can tell they are stupid idiots?
No matter how you describe Intelligence, Intelligence the stat gives set effects. The description for the ability scores is no less fluff than the description for the Barbarian. It is merely a fancifully worded description of a game mechanic.
This is correct however. Just try not to get trapped reading too much meaning into a game term.
I have to agree with the others Ashiel... Intelligence means what the rules say it does nothing more. Although you aren't the only one here guilty of assigning it meaning it doesn't have.
I think you misunderstand me, Min. I'm not suggesting that Intelligence means more than it does in the rules. In fact, I'm saying just the opposite. The rules do not dictate the character that a player must play, nor the way they must play that character, beyond the actual game effects therein.
In short, Intelligence doesn't say you are a moron. It doesn't say you cannot talk correctly if it is lower than average. It doesn't tell you what your IQ is. It does, however, determine how many skill points you get, the modifier to certain skills, and can determine your ability to cast spells of a certain category.
I have to agree with the others Ashiel... Intelligence means what the rules say it does nothing more. Although you aren't the only one here guilty of assigning it meaning it doesn't have.
~looks directly at the person who seems to think Int x 10 = IQ~
Which it obviously isn't.People have said it's a decent yardstick to measure how smart your character is, not that it was an exact equality.
Would you side with those who say someone with a 3 int (minimally sentient by the rules) can speak fluently and carry on normal conversations with an 18 int person and nobody can tell they are stupid idiots?
People say that? If "people" told you 1+1=3 would you believe them? I wouldn't. Going by RAW a 3 Int elf can speak two languages. Is someone with a 3 Int slow at reasoning out new things or learning new skills... yes. But I prefer to let the player tell me why he has such trouble. I do NOT simply call him a "stupid idiot" like you are suggesting.
'Cause Charisma Shows. I love TriOmegaZero so much. <3
People say that? If "people" told you 1+1=3 would you believe them? I wouldn't. Going by RAW a 3 Int elf can speak two languages. Is someone with a 3 Int slow at reasoning out new things or learning new skills... yes. But I prefer to let the player tell me why he has such trouble. I do NOT simply call him a "stupid idiot" like you are suggesting.
Your saying that people with minimum sentient intelligence are smart does not make me believe you. Having a 3 int is not 'slow at reasoning' it's the minimum amount of intelligence you can have and still be considered a sentient being. You are slightly smarter than an animal.
And language use is a strawman, as has been stated before. A half-elf speaks two languages because (s)he grew up in a household that spoke multiple languages. The system gives bonus languages for high int, but doesn't remove them for low int. It's a poor mechanic. Your intelligence has little to do with how many languages you speak. I am highly intelligent, I speak 1 language. I have met a person who spoke 2 languages but had trouble making change for a dollar, and didn't really understand the concept of money and buying things (this was someone hired on as a janitor as part of an outreach program to people with mild to moderate mental disabilities).
Now, the ability to USE that language effectively was severely impared. Someone with a 3 intelligence is not going to sound like Alvus Dumbledore, no matter how much you want them to. They could sound like the classic Hulk (HULK SMASH! Hulk not like puny man! Hulk like pretty bird!). That's still communicating, and still sentient, but it's in no way suave or erudite. And actually, I'd put Hulk at about a 5 personally, not a 3. The Grey hulk about a 7.
B) Did he make a perception roll to even notice the candlestick?
Um... mdt? Do you honestly have players make perception rolls to notice things that are sitting out in plain sight? Not only do I think this would slow the game down drastically, but it isn't realistic at all. The candlestick isn't hidden, why the perception check?
I also think you are right about C and reading too much into Ashiel's post on A. After all the candlestick may only look silver that wouldn't stop the character in the example from grabbing it. Silver was the description of the candlestick... no metagaming required.
'Cause Charisma Shows. I love TriOmegaZero so much. <3
When you are using a literal cartoon parody exaggeration played for laughs as support for your argument, I think it's pretty fair to say this argument has jumped the prehistoric megadon were-shark with a +1000 on the roll.
|
'Cause Charisma Shows. I love TriOmegaZero so much. <3When you are using a literal cartoon parody exaggeration played for laughs as support for your argument, I think it's pretty fair to say this argument has jumped the prehistoric megadon were-shark with a +1000 on the roll.
I could say that of this whole discussion.
B) Did he make a perception roll to even notice the candlestick?
Um... mdt? Do you honestly have players make perception rolls to notice things that are sitting out in plain sight? Not only do I think this would slow the game down drastically, but it isn't realistic at all. The candlestick isn't hidden, why the perception check?
I also think you are right about C and reading too much into Ashiel's post on A. After all the candlestick may only look silver that wouldn't stop the character in the example from grabbing it. Silver was the description of the candlestick... no metagaming required.
Ashiel described it as Silver. However, how would anyone know it's silver? It's shiny. Or it looks silver, but it's actually stainless steel, or adamantine, or pewter (all of which can pass for silver).
As to 'do I make people make perception rolls for stuff sitting around', absolutely I do if they are in combat.
PC : Dangit, I don't have any silver on me. Is there anything in the room that's silver?
GM : "Perception check"
PC : 18, so 26 total.
GM : There's a pair of candlesticks that might be silver, there's also a shiny platter that might be silver over the fireplace. There's also a black teapot that's made of metal, that might be tarnished silver, but you aren't sure. You'd need to take time to check out each one to confirm what it is.
PC : Heck with it, I'll grab the candlesticks and try those, if it doesn't look like it's working, I'll try the platter then the tea pot.
You allow someone in combat to know every detail of their surroundings automatically? So they know how many gems are in the area, what type they are, how many gold coins are in the dragons hoarde, etc? Or do you just give them what their character would take in at a glance, a room full of mixed coins, gems, and other treasure with a giant black dragon in the center?
I could say that of this whole discussion.'Cause Charisma Shows. I love TriOmegaZero so much. <3When you are using a literal cartoon parody exaggeration played for laughs as support for your argument, I think it's pretty fair to say this argument has jumped the prehistoric megadon were-shark with a +1000 on the roll.
It is clear that this will not be resolved. Those who want to argue that they can play their character however they like and damn their stats are not going to be swayed by logic, common sense, consensus or pure reading comprehension.
They will use whatever loophole or gap in the rules they can to make their case. If that isn't clear by now, it never will be.
As I've said before, play how you like. But in my personal opinion, those of you on Ashiel's side of this have an understanding of what "role playing" is that is not just different than mine, but is in fact so diametrically opposed to what I think "role playing" is that I just have to shake my head in complete dumbfounded disbelief. That's all.
And language use is a strawman, as has been stated before.
YOU are the one who brought up language.
Now, the ability to USE that language effectively was severely impared. Someone with a 3 intelligence is not going to sound like Alvus Dumbledore, no matter how much you want them to.
Where does it say that... NOWHERE.
Let the player define his poor stats. Even the example quoted earlier gave options on how your stats might be interpreted. And indeed they offer suggestions on how the player can interpret his scores in role playing. And that was right from the fluff in the rules.
Again, I would say this of both sides.
They will use whatever loophole or gap in the rules they can to make their case. If that isn't clear by now, it never will be.
I'm sure you would. And I am just as certain that this too would become nothing but more pointless argument if I were to provide the obvious rebuttal so I'm just going to let you believe what you like and move on to more interesting posts.
B) Did he make a perception roll to even notice the candlestick?
Um... mdt? Do you honestly have players make perception rolls to notice things that are sitting out in plain sight? Not only do I think this would slow the game down drastically, but it isn't realistic at all. The candlestick isn't hidden, why the perception check?
I also think you are right about C and reading too much into Ashiel's post on A. After all the candlestick may only look silver that wouldn't stop the character in the example from grabbing it. Silver was the description of the candlestick... no metagaming required.
Pretty much this. Min2007 nails it.
When you are using a literal cartoon parody exaggeration played for laughs as support for your argument, I think it's pretty fair to say this argument has jumped the prehistoric megadon were-shark with a +1000 on the roll.
It's called humor. You note it as a parody, and that's what I see this "you see people's charisma" as sounding like. It makes me laugh, it makes me cry, but mostly this makes me laugh. Lolz.
As I've said before, play how you like. But in my personal opinion, those of you on Ashiel's side of this have an understanding of what "role playing" is that is not just different than mine, but is in fact so diametrically opposed to what I think "role playing" is that I just have to shake my head in complete dumbfounded disbelief. That's all.
That's totally cool man. I'm cool roleplaying my way, you guys be roleplaying your way, and not telling people what's the right way to play a character based on their stats, and we're all cool.
I keep pretending to be the number 10 to my Sesame Street time. :P
Sorry, I'm just in a silly mood today.
|
|
I'm sure you would. And I am just as certain that this too would become nothing but more pointless argument if I were to provide the obvious rebuttal so I'm just going to let you believe what you like and move on to more interesting posts.
A much wiser use of your time than making snide and dismissive posts about people.
I'm sure you would. And I am just as certain that this too would become nothing but more pointless argument if I were to provide the obvious rebuttal so I'm just going to let you believe what you like and move on to more interesting posts.A much wiser use of your time than making snide and dismissive posts about people.
Looks like you failed your will save too. :)
Ashiel described it as Silver. However, how would anyone know it's silver? It's shiny. Or it looks silver, but it's actually stainless steel, or adamantine, or pewter (all of which can pass for silver).
As to 'do I make people make perception rolls for stuff sitting around', absolutely I do if they are in combat.
PC : Dangit, I don't have any silver on me. Is there anything in the room that's silver?
GM : "Perception check"
PC : 18, so 26 total.
GM : There's a pair of candlesticks that might be silver, there's also a shiny platter that might be silver over the fireplace. There's also a black teapot that's made of metal, that might be tarnished silver, but you aren't sure. You'd need to take time to check out each one to confirm what it is.
PC : Heck with it, I'll grab the candlesticks and try those, if it doesn't look like it's working, I'll try the platter then the tea pot.You allow someone in combat to know every detail of their surroundings automatically? So they know how many gems are in the area, what type they are, how many gold coins are in the dragons hoarde, etc? Or do you just give them what their character would take in at a glance, a room full of mixed coins, gems, and other treasure with a giant black dragon in the center?
Why are you so determined to put words in other people's mouths?!
I allow people to know what the room looks like without a perception check EVEN IN COMBAT. Did I say I give exact coin counts or the exact make up of any particular item... NO.Are you trying to Troll me with this? I ask honestly. Because you are deliberately misquoting me. We clearly got two completely different impressions from Ashiel's example. With the exception of your use of perception checks it looks to me like Ashiel does the exact same thing you do... Silver is a color. I don't think by the statement "I grab the silver candlestick", he meant anything more than you did, That the candlestick looks silver.