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.
Generally there is no check required to see anything that's right out in the open. It's one of the reasons that you don't have to max Perception checks continuously while walking around in a forest, or on a street, to avoid walking into everything. If there's no cover, or concealment, you automatically notice them.
Now if something is hidden, or concealed, that's different. Likewise, if you see a bag of gold on a table, you can probably tell it's a bag of gold if you see the coins in it, but you could only guess at the amount without examining them further (which might be a Perception check, yes).
However, looking around the room for something that looks like it's made out of silver most likely doesn't require a Perception check. Definitely not to grab a candlestick that indeed looks to be made of silver (though you might get unlucky and grab a finely polished steel candlestick if your luck is awful for some reason), but that's circumstantial as many things are.
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.
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.
Many people, particularly those that have played a fair bit of 1-3.5e D&D, consider it crunch and not fluff. The text in almost all of the older books would have backed it up (as the stuff that was quoted earlier), though 3.5 was admittedly the least forthright. It's been argued (was it by you, Ash?) that the developers "deliberately left out these guidelines" in PFRPG.
But let's think about why it isn't in the Pathfinder CRB. The 3.5 sidebar on ability scores guiding roleplay wasn't SRD. It's just like the confusing situation that resulted from "deleting" the example on how bonus spells work - that text wasn't SRD, so it wasn't copy-pasted, and hence 1000+ posts hit this forum. It was not a deliberate deletion; given that it wasn't in the SRD, it would take a post from a developer or a the inclusion of a sentence like "unlike every previous incarnation of D&D, these stats are supposed to have absolutely no effect beyond the mechanics described" to show otherwise.
Now, if you've read my posts in other parts of this forum, you'd know I'm a huge fan of making the CRB self-contained. And you'd know that I often argue it isn't, as it stands. But certainly history is on the side of baboon. Unless 2e wasn't "roleplaying," that word involves playing the character in front of you, and using the ability scores as a guide.
|
Just as an exercise to get an idea of what stats represented I did a search of the bestiary to see how high and low stats looked.
Strength
5- Grig
7- Brownie or Pixie
19- Minotaure
21- Ogre or Troll
Dexterity
5- nothing... Lowest humanoids were 8, slugs and slimes 1/2
7- Neothelid (a wormy thing with a charisma of 21...)
19- Dryad
21- Pixie
Constitution
lower than 10 Nothing, even a sylph with -2 con stats at 10
19- Elephant
21- Treant
Intelligence
5- Dretch or Griffon
7- Orc or Shambling Mound
19- Couatl
20- Ancient Dragon
Wisdom
5- Derro or Giant Maggot
7- nothing I spotted, 8 was Orc Giant Frog and Purple Worm
19- Couatl
21- Unicorn
Charisma
5- Lemure, Grick or Baboon
7- Choker or Hill Giant
19- Satyr
21- Neolith or Wraith
From this it appears that a 5 stat is pretty disabling. Derro are considered mad for example. 7 is also pretty bad. You are as strong as a Brownie as charismatic as a Choker or as intelligent as a shambling mound...
It also demonstrated to me that stats over 18 are pretty superhuman as well though. 19 strength, as strong as a minotaure!
Charisma seems to have little to do with looks as a giant worm gets a 21. That said, nothing attractive scored below 10. Ogres get an 8, skeletons a 10...
In pure scores terms a 7 isn't that bad, but in comparison terms it stinks...
Stat Stuff
You missed it, about 10 pages back, this was pointed out. It appears that stats for PCs are different than stats for anything else in the system. So that doesn't count.*
*Note, not my point of view, I agree with you, just summing up the argument from 10 pages back in coutnerpoint to your post.
|
|
I will still look forward to goading the dwarf with a 5 charisma by telling them they have the charisma of a baboon :)
I can imagine they won't be long in referring to my characters wisdom equating to that of a Giant Frog...
As Wraithstrike said right at the beginning, its really up to your GM, but I will be using my comparisons table from now on to guage peoples relative strengths and weaknesses.
The half orc dragon disciple with a strength of 26 being stronger than a Hill Giant (although not being able to lift more...), gives a much better flavour than a +8 bonus.
The halfling sorcerer with a stregth of 5 being puny as a Grigg
.
..
...
....
.....
As a mindless construct of our glorious nation's people's will, I can recommend Ham.
Ham - it's really tasty.
Try ham today!
Available in kosher alternatives.
::
OT: I AGREE WITH SOME POINTS BUT FIND OTHERS LESS THAN CONVINCING
::
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.
Min,
the problem some of us are having with Ashiel's "player interpreted" stats, is that though they have a low score, they are "interpreting/playing" it as the examples for the high score.The examples posted earlier said a low Charisma can be interpreted as "reserved, gruff, rude, fawning, or simply nondescript." players with low charisma are "Role-playing" it as the examples for high Charisma "may be attractive, striking, personable, and confident" and saying that since there is no rule, that it should be accepted (or even ignored since they put points in Diplomacy).
Those of us against that are saying, define it however you want, AS LONG AS a low score has a negative definition and a high score has a positive one. Instead people are saying that a 9, 7, or even 5 would not outwardly have a visibly negative effect EXCEPT when you apply it to a mechanic.
|
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.
See I'm torn. On the one hand, this is Ashiel's argument here.
On the other hand, Ashiel has said
"Charisma, the word, doesn't even mean what Charisma the Ability Score means. It generally means a mostly indescribable power that grants divine authority, or some-such. See?"
in other threads.
Ashiel also said
"I was providing rule evidence to support my claim, including but not limited to the rules for Diplomacy and the definitions of the words and actions that were involved"
So I guess what Ashiel is say is that when a definition of a word is what Ashiel thinks is right, it is right, but when it isn't it should be ignored.
Much like the descriptions of what skills do, and the effects of any low ability scores.
Min,
the problem some of us are having with Ashiel's "player interpreted" stats, is that though they have a low score, they are "interpreting/playing" it as the examples for the high score.The examples posted earlier said a low Charisma can be interpreted as "reserved, gruff, rude, fawning, or simply nondescript." players with low charisma are "Role-playing" it as the examples for high Charisma "may be attractive, striking, personable, and confident" and saying that since there is no rule, that it should be accepted (or even ignored since they put points in Diplomacy).
Those of us against that are saying, define it however you want, AS LONG AS a low score has a negative definition and a high score has a positive one. Instead people are saying that a 9, 7, or even 5 would not outwardly have a visibly negative effect EXCEPT when you apply it to a mechanic.
That last sentence is the core of the game, nothing has any affect unless it is applied to a mechanic, even if you don't roll, even if no one asked about your stats, a mechanic was put into effect.
That's why my stance is roleplay however you want, as long as you can back it up when the dice hit the table.
Not to mention it is impossible to accurately stat a barbarian that runs off pure animal instinct due to animal instinct being Int 1-2 and the lowest stat possible a 7. Pretty standard barbarian concept in my opinion too.
|
Not to mention it is impossible to accurately stat a barbarian that runs off pure animal instinct due to animal instinct being Int 1-2 and the lowest stat possible a 7. Pretty standard barbarian concept in my opinion too.
Level 4, Grognak the barbarian.
16 (18)
14 (12)
16
7
14
11 (10)
Ranks in survival, perception, heal, knowledge = nature, stealth.
Born near a forest in a poor brothel, close to a disputed frontier between two kingdoms frequently at war, Grognak soon learnt that wielding a sword was the only sure way to keep his family alive. His love of nature made him soon skip school, too boring and abstract for his tastes, to observe and better understand the ferocious creatures that lived in the old creak. Looking at them, scruting their moves, watching in the most details how a beast was able to tear trees appart and always hit on their prey's soft spots, Grognak found during his dangerous and hardening escapades beyond these predators a wild inspiration. Inspiring himself of their gracious and violent moves, Grognak began to develop a complex fighting stance focused exclusively in ripping appart his enemy. Drawing in his frustration of being unable to protect his family against the frequent thiefs and soldier attacks, he found the strength to sharpen his muscles and senses to a level even veterans warriors could only hope to attain someday, soon being described himself to the eyes of witnesses like "a beast, drawn by pure instinct". When came the day where a combinations of circumstances led to the death of a troup of drunk soldiers that were teasing him about his origins, Grognak fled from house to not bring disaster on his village, and find a meaning to his life.
While in rage, Grognak like any barbarian "cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration".
Physical stats depending on the kind of stance you imagine for the character. Low int because no education, no curiosity for most subjects and a simple, pragmatic mind. High wisdom for sharp senses, common sense and strong-willed persona. Average charisma because despite his wild attitude, he is naturally impressive and knows how to deal with people from his numerous siblings.
Well, it doesn't look so "impossible" to me...
That's why my stance is roleplay however you want, as long as you can back it up when the dice hit the table.
The second half of that is news to me.
Not to mention it is impossible to accurately stat a barbarian that runs off pure animal instinct due to animal instinct being Int 1-2 and the lowest stat possible a 7. Pretty standard barbarian concept in my opinion too.
Who said the lowest score possible is a 7? If you are rolling it aint. I got a 5 right here, in STR. And I play em.
So yea, depending on generation method and willingness to try it, you can in fact have lower then a 7.
Not to mention it is impossible to accurately stat a barbarian that runs off pure animal instinct due to animal instinct being Int 1-2 and the lowest stat possible a 7. Pretty standard barbarian concept in my opinion too.Level 4, Grognak the barbarian.
16 (18)
14 (12)
16
7
14
11 (10)Ranks in survival, perception, heal, knowledge = nature, stealth.
Born near a forest in a poor brothel, close to a disputed frontier between two kingdoms frequently at war, Grognak soon learnt that wielding a sword was the only sure way to keep his family alive. His love of nature made him soon skip school, too boring and abstract for his tastes, to observe and better understand the ferocious creatures that lived in the old creak. Looking at them, scruting their moves, watching in the most details how a beast was able to tear trees appart and always hit on their prey's soft spots, Grognak found during his dangerous and hardening escapades beyond these predators a wild inspiration. Inspiring himself of their gracious and violent moves, Grognak began to develop a complex fighting stance focused exclusively in ripping appart his enemy. Drawing in his frustration of being unable to protect his family against the frequent thiefs and soldier attacks, he found the strength to sharpen his muscles and senses to a level even veterans warriors could only hope to attain someday, soon being described himself to the eyes of witnesses like "a beast, drawn by pure instinct". When came the day where a combinations of circumstances led to the death of a troup of drunk soldiers that were teasing him about his origins, Grognak fled from house to not bring disaster on his village, and find a meaning to his life.While in rage, Grognak like any barbarian "cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration".
Physical stats depending on the kind of stance you imagine for the character. Low...
INT 7? that dude can read and write, and speak, and understand when people are insulting him as opposed to just eating their face because he is hungry. He should be more like a wolf, or a jaguar, should probably like the druid more then most.
The dude you have is far far too smart to only be running on instinct. He is only copying certain aspects to defend himself and others.
How does one play a smart character with a low Intelligence?
How does one play a wise character with a low Wisdom?
How does one play a charismatic character with a low Charisma?
I just don't see it as possible. I see that you can adjust for some aspects being lower by using skills and feats, but you can't account for everything.
Here's what Paizo has to say about the Village Idiot:
Giving a village idiot the Skill Focus feat in place of Endurance creates an idiot savant, displaying great knowledge in one specific area, usually a Craft or Knowledge skill. Switching an idiot savant’s Constitution and Charisma scores, and giving him Animal Affinity, Skill Focus (Handle Animal), and the Handle Animal skill instead of Climb, creates a horse whisperer or someone who relates better to animals than to humans (hp 4, Fort +0, Handle Animal +11).
You can find his stats here.
Here's something else Paizo has to say about players playing outside their abilities (in this case, they are specifically talking about the Thespian type player in the Gamemastery Guide):
After all, your players put ranks into Bluff, Diplomacy, Sense Motive, and other social skills for a reason, and you shouldn’t give away your biggest secrets to the thespian instead of the Diplomacy heavy
bard just because the thespian player likes to do all the talking. As with other metagame questions of personal knowledge versus character knowledge, it's important to remember that a great performance by a player doesn't necessarily indicate the same from his character.
This is what I am talking about when I say you can compensate a little but you are still stuck with your stats defining part of your character. Yes, you get to have some say in it but you are not going to be playing someone who is brilliant with a 7 Intelligence just because you want to, at least not in my games. If you want to be smart, then put the points where they go.
I guess this means he rolls acrobatics to walk across the room, then?That's why my stance is roleplay however you want, as long as you can back it up when the dice hit the table.The second half of that is news to me.
Take 10 for the win
That last sentence is the core of the game, nothing has any affect unless it is applied to a mechanic, even if you don't roll, even if no one asked about your stats, a mechanic was put into effect.
This is where you and I see two different games.
To me the "core" of the game is Role-playing, and the mechanics are ONLY there to adjudicate the actions, so that they don't devolve into "I got you!" "No, you didn't!"
If I say, "Razgar runs and jumps over the small chasm", the dice say "we'll see if he succeeds".
If I say, "Razgar will be easily approachable" the mechanics say "Then he will need Charisma."
Before I get the "go play diceless or narrator style games." I don't play diceless or RP only rules, because I want there to be risk and hard set rules on whether what I try to do succeeds or not. Until I need the mechanic though, it doesn't exist. If I want to be charismatic, I use the mechanic to add to Charisma. If I want to be attentive to my surroundings, I use the mechanic for the Perception skill. If I want to make a particular concept for my character, I build it using the mechanics. The mechanics are just there to adjudicate the concept I want to Role-play.
If I say, "Razgar will be easily approachable" the mechanics say "Then he will need Charisma."
Actually the mechanics say "roll charisma". If I have a -5 and you have a +5 but I roll a 15 and you roll a 5 we both still got ten. The mechanic doesn't say "this requires charisma" it says "charisma provides a bonus to this"
Who said the lowest score possible is a 7? If you are rolling it aint. I got a 5 right here, in STR. And I play em.
So yea, depending on generation method and willingness to try it, you can in fact have lower then a 7.
If you don't roll low at all your character concept is ruined. Which I think is even more restricting with requiring stats to be played according to score.
Player: "my lowest roll is a 12"
DM: "looks like you won't be making that barbarian you wanted. You could always be the healbot until next time where you might roll better."
|
|
INT 7? that dude can read and write, and speak, and understand when people are insulting him as opposed to just eating their face because he is hungry. He should be more like a wolf, or a jaguar, should probably like the druid more then most.
The dude you have is far far too smart to only be running on instinct. He is only copying certain aspects to defend himself and others.
I never said he knew how to write or read. He's a son of a whore forest/farmer boy. Nothing stops you to play him suspicious, hot-headed, unnecessarily agressive when annoyed and looking always a bit on guard like an animal.
If you want to play a barely sentient dumb freak in a roleplaying game, feel free to play an animal companion or to dump you Int stat, just don't think this will allow you to boost any other stat on your way. Or well, come on, boost. With this kind of character you'll probably not even be able to stay free or alive once you'll set foot in any civilized city.A base barbarian, when in rage, "cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration" ; to me it pretty much IS the crunch for a guy "running on instinct". This precise fluff point is even being emphazised in Grognak's roleplay and background. If you want to play something unplayable for the fun, cool for you, but don't say it's absolutely impossible to stat when you just have to drop some points from Grognak's intelligence. I used the 20 point-buy way for the stats, you can have lower by rolling them.
|
|
If you don't roll low at all your character concept is ruined. Which I think is even more restricting with requiring stats to be played according to score.Player: "my lowest roll is a 12"
DM: "looks like you won't be making that barbarian you wanted. You could always be the healbot until next time where you might roll better."
Player : "this is too intelligent for the barbarian I think about... I'll make him 7, it's more fitting to the farmer boy."
DM : "As you wish."??? : Profit !
I never said he knew how to write or read. He's a son of a whore forest/farmer boy. Nothing stops you to play him suspicious, hot-headed, unnecessarily agressive when annoyed and looking always a bit on guard like an animal.
If you want to play a barely sentient dumb freak in a roleplaying game, feel free to play an animal companion or to dump you Int stat, just don't think this will allow you to boost any other stat on your way. Or well, come on, boost. With this kind of character you'll probably not even be able to stay free or alive once you'll set foot in any civilized city.
A base barbarian, when in rage, "cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except Acrobatics, Fly, Intimidate, and Ride) or any ability that requires patience or concentration" ; to me it pretty much IS the crunch for a guy "running on instinct". This precise fluff point is even being emphazised in Grognak's roleplay and background. If you want to play something unplayable for the fun, cool for you, but don't say it's absolutely impossible to stat when you just have to drop some points from Grognak's intelligence. I used the 20 point-buy way for the stats, you can have lower by rolling them.
If your always raging then yeah you might have hit the nail on the head. I find it can be a lot of fun to be the wizards half orc guard dog. Playing my stats would have given me enough logical reason not to go take a piss on that noble, which would ruin the fun.
See my other post on the problems with rolling and playing your stats.
Player : "this is too intelligent for the barbarian I think about... I'll make him 7, it's more fitting to the farmer boy."
DM : "As you wish."
??? : Profit !
Oh houserules are allowed for discussion now
player: "can I play my 7 like a 2?"
DM: "as you wish"
??? : Profit !
|
|
Oh houserules are allowed for discussion nowplayer: "can I play my 7 like a 2?"
DM: "as you wish"
??? : Profit !
Yeah, because it's probably just a filthy, bad, spooky and out-of-topic houserule for any DM to allow someone to, you know, lower a stat he randomly rolled just to fit better his character because the player doesn't want an advantage he considers unfair and irrelevant, and prefers fallible characters with weaknesses.
And then I'm not allowed to play my 7 like a 15, or my 7 like a 2 ? Getting a disadvantage is allowed, but not the opposite ?! Preposterous !Anyone who would come with a 2 Int character in my table would be given the fighter's horse's sheet and told to actually propose something - and I'm neither the DM nor our games are overly serious, since we tell stupid jokes and puns during hours. We're here for roleplaying, not growlplaying. And this comes from someone who has a wonderful 5 Int/5 Wis half-ogre barbarian in his group.
But I guess that if you have no other argument about lesser-Grognak than "HE REDUCED HIS INTELLIGENCE STAT 4 FREE IT'S BAD", we're over about the supposed impossibility to build a barbarian running on instinct... >_>
Oh houserules are allowed for discussion nowplayer: "can I play my 7 like a 2?"
DM: "as you wish"
??? : Profit !Yeah, because it's probably just a filthy, bad, spooky and out-of-topic houserule for any DM to allow someone to, you know, lower a stat he randomly rolled just to fit better his character because the player doesn't want an advantage he considers unfair and irrelevant, and prefers fallible characters with weaknesses.
And then I'm not allowed to play my 7 like a 15, or my 7 like a 2 ? Getting a disadvantage is allowed, but not the opposite ?! Preposterous !
Anyone who would come with a 2 Int character in my table would be given the fighter's horse's sheet and told to actually propose something - and I'm neither the DM nor our games are overly serious, since we tell stupid jokes and puns during hours. We're here for roleplaying, not growlplaying. And this comes from someone who has a wonderful 5 Int/5 Wis half-ogre barbarian in his group.But I guess that if you have no other argument about lesser-Grognak than "HE REDUCED HIS INTELLIGENCE STAT 4 FREE IT'S BAD", we're over about the supposed impossibility to build a barbarian running on instinct... >_>
Yes lowering stats past 7 is in fact a houserule, just because something isn't advantageous does not mean it is allowed.
Look at it this way, If I need a high stat for my concept but I don't want to dump anything because that would also ruin it (I don't want to be weak, dumb, etc. mostly a little above average in other things) you wouldn't freely give me points would you?
If yes, that is unbalancing, if no, your driving literally hundreds of fun characters into never being played.
Yes lowering stats past 7 is in fact a houserule, just because something isn't advantageous does not mean it is allowed.
Look at it this way, If I need a high stat for my concept but I don't want to dump anything because that would also ruin it (I don't want to be weak, dumb, etc. mostly a little above average in other things) you wouldn't freely give me points would you?
If yes, that is unbalancing, if no, your driving literally hundreds of fun characters into never being played.
Um, you didn't leave us a lot of good choices in your last sentence.
Seriously, though, if you showed up to a PFS session and a guy had knowingly used a 10-point buy instead of a 20, would you say he was cheating? I can't even imagine anyone doing that.
|
|
Look at it this way, If I need a high stat for my concept but I don't want to dump anything because that would also ruin it (I don't want to be weak, dumb, etc. mostly a little above average in other things) you wouldn't freely give me points would you?
If yes, that is unbalancing, if no, your driving literally hundreds of fun characters into never being played.
One answer : 20-point buy.
18
12
12
12
12
12
Here. You're "a little above average in everything". You are the powerful guy with the high stat you needed, you are fast, healthy, able to think and learn, have good senses and a good social feeling. And the funniest part about this ? This is totally legal by RAW and you don't even need me to give you points to make it work. You can also lower you strength to 16 to increase all the stats by 1 or another one to 14 and two others by 1. Oh, and there is also the possibility to do the point-buy with 25 points, "Epic-Fantasy" level style of play. It's in the core rulebook.
I wouldn't even care about you wanting to play the perfect guy. Perfect guys aren't interesting nor fun except when you mock them, it's the basis of every story with a strong guy ever. Lightly above average guys playing in a comical way like if they were perfect, Narcisse-like, are a fun concept, and it's easy to put in numbers.
Still, there is *always* someone better than you in at least one field except if you dump something else on your way. And I don't care if a "fun character" that needed 16 or 18 everywhere to reflect the supposed roleplay never comes into game. Playing with superman isn't fun in D&D.
Seriously, though, if you showed up to a PFS session and a guy had knowingly used a 10-point buy instead of a 20, would you say he was cheating? I can't even imagine anyone doing that.
A guy doing this isn't only nerfing himself, he's a danger for his group. I would talk to him beforehand. I don't mind someone dumping a stat under the 7 limit if it's better for his roleplay in terms of crunch, but I would ask him to first do the full point-buy like everyone else, and only then allow him to down one or two stats a bit if this reflects better his character. Or I would say to him that if he wants to be naturally less poweful than us, he can do a 15-point buy. I wouldn't give him points elsewhere for this though.
Yes lowering stats past 7 is in fact a houserule, just because something isn't advantageous does not mean it is allowed.
Look at it this way, If I need a high stat for my concept but I don't want to dump anything because that would also ruin it (I don't want to be weak, dumb, etc. mostly a little above average in other things) you wouldn't freely give me points would you?
If yes, that is unbalancing, if no, your driving literally hundreds of fun characters into never being played.
Um, you didn't leave us a lot of good choices in your last sentence.
Seriously, though, if you showed up to a PFS session and a guy had knowingly used a 10-point buy instead of a 20, would you say he was cheating? I can't even imagine anyone doing that.
Considering that he's supposed to be part of a team of 20 PB characters, he's cheating someone. If I was the GM, I'd tell him to make a legal character and then come back, because he knew the rules and he wasn't the only one playing (other players will be relying on him as well).
The only way I intentionally nerf myself is after getting permission from the party. I'm currently thinking about rolling a character who has a Paladin-esque Vow of Poverty (and no, I don't mean those stupid feats), where my character only uses what he or she can carry and donates the rest to a religious order or similar. However, I wouldn't bring such a character to the table without making sure everyone else thought it was fine, and after assuring them that I'm going to take precautions to not hold them back.
Min,
the problem some of us are having with Ashiel's "player interpreted" stats, is that though they have a low score, they are "interpreting/playing" it as the examples for the high score.The examples posted earlier said a low Charisma can be interpreted as "reserved, gruff, rude, fawning, or simply nondescript." players with low charisma are "Role-playing" it as the examples for high Charisma "may be attractive, striking, personable, and confident" and saying that since there is no rule, that it should be accepted (or even ignored since they put points in Diplomacy).
Those of us against that are saying, define it however you want, AS LONG AS a low score has a negative definition and a high score has a positive one. Instead people are saying that a 9, 7, or even 5 would not outwardly have a visibly negative effect EXCEPT when you apply it to a mechanic.
And "attractive, striking, personable, and confident" might be taken in entirely negative ways. Maybe no one takes you seriously 'cause of your looks, assume you're shallow, feel you're personable attitude makes you come off as a little too invested, or mistake your confidence for arrogance. Incidentally, attractive, striking, and personable are all synonymous (though personable can also mean you have a friendly personality), and a lot of people dislike pretty people because of preconceived distaste or simple jealousy.
So you could have an attractive, striking, personable, and confident, and it could entirely rub people the wrong way. For all intents and purposes it sounds great, but it's not making that -2 penalty any lighter. It probably doesn't help you relate to anyone. Hell, it might just mean that people don't take you seriously because you seem like an overly eager Kalvin Klein model in armor instead of a hardened warrior.
I suppose I would have to talk with a player who wanted to play a positive as a negative. I would allow it as long as they were fully aware of the consequences of that bit of characterization. For example if they wanted to play a "Kalvin Klein model in armor", someone who defined their -2 to charisma as never being taken seriously. Then I would allow it but NPCs wouldn't take that character seriously. It's the player's fluff. But as a game master I only enhance my game by using all that fluff players make. It may very well lead to a variety of fun role play. People of the opposite sex would hit on the character for one night stands, but they would find it hard to find someone looking for a serious relationship. Also you may well get passed over for mission offers and rarely given much credit when finishing missions because the NPCs assume you just went along with your team mates for the photo opportunities. Can this be overcome? Yes with effort and skill roles. But in general this is how the people will treat you. If that's what Ashiel wants to play, then I will allow it. It may very well be a fun addition to the group if Ashiel plays it well.
I suppose I would have to talk with a player who wanted to play a positive as a negative. I would allow it as long as they were fully aware of the consequences of that bit of characterization. For example if they wanted to play a "Kalvin Klein model in armor", someone who defined their -2 to charisma as never being taken seriously. Then I would allow it but NPCs wouldn't take that character seriously. It's the player's fluff. But as a game master I only enhance my game by using all that fluff players make. It may very well lead to a variety of fun role play. People of the opposite sex would hit on the character for one night stands, but they would find it hard to find someone looking for a serious relationship. Also you may well get passed over for mission offers and rarely given much credit when finishing missions because the NPCs assume you just went along with your team mates for the photo opportunities. Can this be overcome? Yes with effort and skill roles. But in general this is how the people will treat you. If that's what Ashiel wants to play, then I will allow it. It may very well be a fun addition to the group if Ashiel plays it well.
Oh look. Roleplaying. :P
|
|
I suppose I would have to talk with a player who wanted to play a positive as a negative. I would allow it as long as they were fully aware of the consequences of that bit of characterization. For example if they wanted to play a "Kalvin Klein model in armor", someone who defined their -2 to charisma as never being taken seriously. Then I would allow it but NPCs wouldn't take that character seriously. It's the player's fluff. But as a game master I only enhance my game by using all that fluff players make. It may very well lead to a variety of fun role play. People of the opposite sex would hit on the character for one night stands, but they would find it hard to find someone looking for a serious relationship. Also you may well get passed over for mission offers and rarely given much credit when finishing missions because the NPCs assume you just went along with your team mates for the photo opportunities. Can this be overcome? Yes with effort and skill roles. But in general this is how the people will treat you. If that's what Ashiel wants to play, then I will allow it. It may very well be a fun addition to the group if Ashiel plays it well.
Well yeah.
In your game negative stats had a negative consequence.
Fancy that.
Well yeah.In your game negative stats had a negative consequence.
Fancy that.
Of course they wouldn't be called negatives if they didn't come with a price. The difference is I let the player use that penalty to develop a person behind the numbers rather than simply automatically calling him crude.
In the end I think this is basically close to what Ashiel's side has been arguing all along. I may be mistaken but that's what I read in the various examples.
Nope, it causes roleplaying.Still not a negative consequence.Having NPC's view you a "smarmy" doesn't cause issues in your game?
It is hard to be party face when you are, accurately viewed as smarmy.
ToZ,
He means negatives to the character, not the player and the game and roleplaying. You know that, now go get your popcorn and go read the Spells that are Killing Games. You can snipe at Cartigan, who deserves it much more. :)
Thank you ciretose and mdt. TOZ was giving me a headache.
I learned long ago that Cartigan, like seeker, is an immovable stone.
RD's also over there too. :)
TOZ and Cartigan are two of the best posters on this forum, IMHO. TOZ has a very down to earth view of everything and (best yet) a wonderful sense of humor. Cartigan, while often a bit grating on people, gives it to you strait and doesn't try to twist the truth. He puts it like it is, and he generally seems to know is stuff. Ravingdork, I also like. I would love to have him try to pick apart stuff I write, and find the problems in it. He also seems like a genuinely swell fellow who thinks outside the box.
======
I'm going to mostly ignore Ciretose's commentary on "Dashing" 'cause the definition of dashing has nothing to do with Charisma. Thus, merely saying that is enough.
Ultimately, yes, we could make an eager, handsome, friendly fellow that actually rubs off on people the wrong way. He has his -2 from Charisma just like everyone else. We have decided how to flavor that -2, and he is now more interesting. However, everything about our character is what others might consider the opposite of a low charisma, and yet it works great.
Just like with Sigfried in the practical optimization thread. He begins poor with people. This was explained because he's spent the vast majority of his time learning to be a warrior, and didn't have time for social niceties. He's more used to palling around with other warrior types with equally low Charisma, so when he tries to deal with people with higher Charisma (average people even) he tends to make the wrong jokes, or come off as boisterous, and so forth. As the game (and his levels) progress, he evolves past this.
That, in essence, is the entire point of gaining levels. The evolution, and growth, from infancy to maturity. RPGs are a mirror of life, and a window into the growth of the mind and the soul. A way for humanity to exercise the innate gift to create. At least, that's how I've viewed it for nearly my entire experience playing D&D. It's not about some nameless goon becoming the guy who cut the head from a hundred dragons. It's about life. In life, people grow, and they adapt, and we can find the diamonds in the rough in those who you never expected it from.
YMMV I guess.
TOZ and Cartigan are two of the best posters on this forum, IMHO.
Hey ToZ? How doe sit feel to be likened to Cartigan? :)
|
|
Well yeah.In your game negative stats had a negative consequence.
Fancy that.
Of course they wouldn't be called negatives if they didn't come with a price. The difference is I let the player use that penalty to develop a person behind the numbers rather than simply automatically calling him crude.
In the end I think this is basically close to what Ashiel's side has been arguing all along. I may be mistaken but that's what I read in the various examples.
What you said is fine.
Ashiel took it to another level by then saying by putting ranks into Diplomacy you can completely remove the negative effects of being "smarmy" and simply have a -2 charisma perceived as a dashing Adonis.
Skill are not Abilities.
You can put points in Diplomacy so that when you are interacting with people they will overlook the fact that you are smarmy and work with you anyway, but you will still be smarmy.
You can wear a charisma modifying item to be less smarmy. It is an option, but you have to invest in it. And Ashiel doesn't want to use any resources, but wants outcomes.
What the rest of us are saying is the smarmy guy starts off less favorably and has to do more to be liked than the person who is charismatic.
What you wrote is exactly how I would play it. If you want a pretty low charisma character, tell me how you are negative.
If you want to be smooth talking low charisma, tell me how you are negative.
I'll incorporate it into the game, I love that you took the time to come up with a concept. That makes the game better.
But when you want me to handwave your low charisma score because you really want to be charming without having to lower your AC or Attack Bonus...nope.