|
Maybe, but that is trained only.Even better. Juggling (IRL): trained only. Sleight of Hand (in game): trained only. Works for me.
Just to check in with the original point, do we both (all) agree with Kamelguru that 4 of the 6 ability scores have specific uses outside of skills.
As to Dex and Charisma as the exceptions, I believe one side is saying these are what you default to when the skill doesn't fit.
Now you throw in bab and CMB, which I don't have a specific issue with as to a catch, because both could make sense (CMB especially).
Two questions, aside from what a specific skill does or does not govern.
1. Is the ability score the default if it doesn't fall under a skill (or as Kirth suggested BAB or CMB)
2. Are there situations where Dex and/or Charisma are the check when RAW doesn't have a specific option, as you would similar to the examples outlined on page 33 of the old 3.5 DMG.
Just one of the humors of the system (like elephants being good mountain climbers).I'll have you know that I take my elephant mountain climbing all the time, thank you.Thank you Hannibal.
But back to the point, a problems with the perform analogy occurs
1. There isn't actually a perform, juggling.
So if I wanted to juggle, for whatever reason, what would I do?
If I had to make a diving catch, for whatever reason, what would I use?
In my game, both would be a dexterity check, with maybe a jump check for the diving part depending on if you could get to the area with movement.
So combine that with Kamelguru stating he uses checks for Strength, Con, Wisdom and Intelligence, only one ability score is off limits for use when skills don't fit.
Weird that.
Why are all other ability checks the default when skills don't fit, except for Charisma?
Because the game does not have skills for breaking stuff, enduring stuff, remembering stuff or realizing common sense issues, as I bemoaned in my last post. It is illogical, because knowing WHERE to strike to break something is just as vital as having the strength to do so. A log splits easily down the middle, but put it on the side and try to chop it in half; completely different challenge.
I just cannot think of any real life situation where you cannot improve beyond your natural gift by training/studying. I even try to avoid pure con checks, favoring fortitude saves, to reflect the hardiness of a character through pursuing his class.
Oh, and diving catch; Reflex save in my book. "Good at diving out of the way of something" is close enough to "good at diving to catch something".
Oh, and diving catch; Reflex save in my book. "Good at diving out of the way of something" is close enough to "good at diving to catch something".
No way! I can dodge just about anything thrown at me, even if I'm not expecting it. I can't catch a fly ball to save my life. It's like the one aptitude actively interferes with the other.
|
|
Oh, and diving catch; Reflex save in my book. "Good at diving out of the way of something" is close enough to "good at diving to catch something".No way! I can dodge just about anything thrown at me, even if I'm not expecting it. I can't catch a fly ball to save my life. It's like the one aptitude actively interferes with the other.
:)
And here is where I am fine with either option given, as I don't think a player can try to manipulate RAI to create a character than catch a fly ball despite min/maxing.
Where I have a specific problem is a player trying to negate an ability score through skills by using fluff (I'm pretty but socially awkward) mixed with skills (all social interactions are diplomacy checks, so I am good in all social interactions...and pretty)
How as DM you adjudicate the grey areas is part of the GM job. But when a player is doing it to loophole a weakness, I have an issue with it.
Oh, and diving catch; Reflex save in my book. "Good at diving out of the way of something" is close enough to "good at diving to catch something".No way! I can dodge just about anything thrown at me, even if I'm not expecting it. I can't catch a fly ball to save my life. It's like the one aptitude actively interferes with the other.
Did you take a flaw at birth? :P
He took a number of them, but his DM stiffed him on the benefits. :)
Did you take a flaw at birth? :P
That's cold, TOZ.
True story: my friends' neighbor, some years ago, was enrolled at the police academy and asked to interview me. When I asked what for, she replied, "because you seem like a criminal."
Low Charisma? Maybe. I've got a forceful personality, but a strong negative vibe on some kind of subliminal level (in Amber Diceless terms, I'm a "Bad Stuff" character, I guess). That's why I'd like to see "force of personality" divorced from "magnetism" in the game.
Or maybe that's another one of those flaws that isn't granting me a bonus feat. Dammit, TOZ!
The other reason I try to broaden the fields of skills is to be more PC inclusive, since most classes barely get enough skill points to do 2-3 things well at all. If I demand that they sink lots of points into over-specialized skills, I limit them further. I would not be adverse to the idea of having more specialized skills if the number of skill points per level tripled or quadrupled.
I, too, sometimes find myself saddened at the number of skill points for certain classes. *cough*cleric*cough*. My focus isn't punishing those that invest in skills, but striking a balance between those that invest in skills and those that invest in unpopular stats.
As for your example, sure, I would use charisma if I just wanted to clear it on the spot, but if it was important or did not detract from the game in general, set up a skill challenge using certain pseudo-relevant skill checks, like Sense Motive to learn how she ticks, Disguise to appear more attractive, and Perform (act) to carry himself well etc. Battle of the bards, I guess.
I'd be 100% behind allowing skills to help that sort of check - maybe an appropriate DC skill check per skill to gain a +1/+2 circumstance bonus on the ability check. That's a cool idea, and a great way to reward players for their skill investments without completely overriding stats. Actually, I really, really like this mechanic, and think it works for a variety of social interactions that aren't fully covered by the skills. I'd say it'd do a much better job than a straight diplomacy check for the horrible seduction scenario we keep bringing up - words just aren't all that play into that scene, though they could certainly help.
...you want final modifier to a skill to be the determining factor. (of roleplay)I'd say that's quite fair.
I can definitely understand this opinion. The main problem I see is that it puts your players in a weird place, RP wise, if they don't invest in all social skills equally.
I still think it's fairly reasonable to ask a player to try to show both his stat and his final score in roleplay. I think that asking it, gently and politely, is backed up by the rules. If it results in players considering picking ability scores based on a concept instead of mechanical min/maxing, I'd consider it a win for everyone at the table.
Mind: there are about 50,000 wrong ways to bring it up. Most of them have to do with frustration, and several of them have been displayed in this thread. And no, I can't fairly require success. Only effort.
Final note: I know Kamelguru and Ashiel both think that the definitions of the stats are flavor text and don't matter. I disagree and have a new argument about that, but I'm out of room for this post.
I still think it's fairly reasonable to ask a player to try to show both his stat and his final score in roleplay. I think that asking it, gently and politely, is backed up by the rules. If it results in players considering picking ability scores based on a concept instead of mechanical min/maxing, I'd consider it a win for everyone at the table.
I have no argument against the fact that playing a character with low mental stats across the board like a cunning, suave genius is bad RP. But unless you have multiple penalized mental stats, I generally see no problem with a character overcoming their limitations. This opinion is rooted in my education and profession (childcare pedagogue), using the core principles of Czinzenmihaly's "resilience" school of thought, stating that one can overcome negative factors if you have more positive factors backing you up.
Basically, if you pool your INT/WIS/CHA and come up positive, I have no problem with you portraying your character as mentally stronger than average. Or at least not terribly flawed.
I do admit that I rarely see a stat lower than 8 in play, and this model of thought might well seem off when people go as low as 5, but I have never seen anyone put a 5 in something and ignoring it. But even then, if you have a dwarf with Int14, Wis18 and Cha6, I still insist that this dwarf has a strong mind. He will likely have the skills to overcome his social drawbacks, reflecting his allocation of his strengths(int) to cover his weakness(cha). He won't be good, but he will be passable. Just like someone who has high charisma can SEEM intelligent by bluffing and using unusual words, but be seen through by anyone who is ACTUALLY intelligent.
Mind: there are about 50,000 wrong ways to bring it up. Most of them have to do with frustration, and several of them have been displayed in this thread. And no, I can't fairly require success. Only effort.
Final note: I know Kamelguru and Ashiel both think that the definitions of the stats are flavor text and don't matter. I disagree and have a new argument about that, but I'm out of room for this post.
I cannot stand behind the notion that a human can be summed up in 6 stats and not take it with a grain of salt and few spoonfuls of suspended disbelief. On too many levels, the system crashes when measured against any level of applied logic or comparisons. In real life, we have NINE different acknowledged subgroups of intelligence (some are arguably covered by charisma, like the ability to break the "music code" and whatnot), and our brains have two halves with very different functions. But for a relatively casual game like Pathfinder, having 12+ mental stats (I can easily think of three different subgroups that wisdom affects: Wits, resilience, empathy, but if I sat down and considered it, I could likely double that) would be absurd.
I generally try to expand the limits as much as possible, and try to not get hung up in semantics, terms and definitions. (Like one post in another thread claiming "Combat Expertise" should have higher requirements due to the word "Expertise")
All in all, I applaud incorporating flaws in characters, and loathe lawyering and power-gaming when I GM, like most. But I do not consider it something worth spending time and effort on during game. And as a player, I hate it when the GM invents reasons to limit my characters based on his perception of things. And downright refuse to acknowledge his ruling if I am not made aware of his "house rules" before play. I am not so starved for play that I need to accept stuff of which I vehemently disapprove.
|
|
I still think it's fairly reasonable to ask a player to try to show both his stat and his final score in roleplay. I think that asking it, gently and politely, is backed up by the rules. If it results in players considering picking ability scores based on a concept instead of mechanical min/maxing, I'd consider it a win for everyone at the table.I have no argument against the fact that playing a character with low mental stats across the board like a cunning, suave genius is bad RP. But unless you have multiple penalized mental stats, I generally see no problem with a character overcoming their limitations. This opinion is rooted in my education and profession (childcare pedagogue), using the core principles of Czinzenmihaly's "resilience" school of thought, stating that one can overcome negative factors if you have more positive factors backing you up.
Wow...my training actually helps here.
I am a juvenile counselor of sorts, and so I am very familiar with resilience model, I use it every day, and I disagree with your application of it here.
The point of resiliency model is (oversymplifying) to attempt to locate resources that will help kids to find ways cope with static factors rather than trying to comprehensively solve all problems.
You do this by creating protective factors to address static issues (things that will not change) while reducing dynamic (things that you can change) risk factors.
However the underlying static factors still exist, which is kind of the point of resilience model. If a kid has a low IQ, you try to find ways they can be successful despite this low IQ. But part of that is understanding that kid has a static weakness (low IQ) that you can't "fix" and that the kid will need to learn to adapt to deal with.
Because he has a low IQ, he's going to have trouble completing some tasks, so you want to put him in situations where he can be successful by finding areas of strength (maybe he is good with his hands, etc...) where his static issues won't interfere.
But that kid still has a low IQ. That is a static factor, there is nothing that can be done to fix it and he will need to learn coping mechanisms and find protective factors to adapt to it.
When you are able to move a kid from a place where his static factor issues aren't being negated by protective factors to a place where he can have success, that isn't removing the static factor. The understanding of resiliance model is that you can't holistically fix everything, you have to teach kids to be able to adapt.
So I can see why you want skills to be these dynamic factors, but skills aren't dynamic, they are static. They don't ever risk going down, they can only improve. If I get a kid into a CDL program and he completes it, he will always have a CDL (unless it expires or something) and that skill will be a static protective factor.
Applying resilience model to the game, in my opinion, would more relate to a player who lacks a skill set networking with a group that is able to fill that "gap" and have a need for the skill set he brings.
A fighter is able to fight, a wizard is not. A wizard can cast, a fighter cannot. Bringing them together creates a synergy where they both can use their strengths and offset static weaknesses.
I still think it's fairly reasonable to ask a player to try to show both his stat and his final score in roleplay. I think that asking it, gently and politely, is backed up by the rules. If it results in players considering picking ability scores based on a concept instead of mechanical min/maxing, I'd consider it a win for everyone at the table.I have no argument against the fact that playing a character with low mental stats across the board like a cunning, suave genius is bad RP. But unless you have multiple penalized mental stats, I generally see no problem with a character overcoming their limitations. This opinion is rooted in my education and profession (childcare pedagogue), using the core principles of Czinzenmihaly's "resilience" school of thought, stating that one can overcome negative factors if you have more positive factors backing you up.
Wow...my training actually helps here.
I am a juvenile counselor of sorts, and so I am very familiar with resilience model, I use it every day, and I disagree with your application of it here.
The point of resiliency model is (oversymplifying) to attempt to locate resources that will help kids to find ways cope with static factors rather than trying to comprehensively solve all problems.
You do this by creating protective factors to address static issues (things that will not change) while reducing dynamic (things that you can change) risk factors.
However the underlying static factors still exist, which is kind of the point of resilience model. If a kid has a low IQ, you try to find ways they can be successful despite this low IQ. But part of that is understanding that kid has a static weakness (low IQ) that you can't "fix" and that the kid will need to learn to adapt to deal with.
Because he has a low IQ, he's going to have trouble completing some tasks, so you want to put him in situations where he can be successful by finding areas of strength (maybe he is good with his hands,...
See my bold, and last post. Pathfinder is a gross oversimplification in practice. If you are strong in terms of Wis and Cha, those are supporting factors helping you overcome your deficiency. And note that this is solely on PORTRAYAL, not mechanics. Int8 is gonna be int8 no matter how much you have in Wis and Cha, but you can hide it using Cha and find common sense solutions rather than intellectual ones (like asking the wizard).
Basically just my way of saying "don't have to go around actively being a slack-jawed derp because you have one low mental stat."
|
|
See my bold, and last post. Pathfinder is a gross oversimplification in practice. If you are strong in terms of Wis and Cha, those are supporting factors helping you overcome your deficiency. And note that this is solely on PORTRAYAL, not mechanics. Int8 is gonna be int8 no matter how much you have in Wis and Cha, but you can hide it using Cha and find common sense solutions rather than intellectual ones (like asking the wizard).Basically just my way of saying "don't have to go around actively being a slack-jawed derp because you have one low mental stat."
Yes, but what others proposed was that the weakness became a strength, through skills.
This is what I have an issue with.
Finding a compensatory work around for a limitation is fine, finding a way to game the system so the weakness becomes a strength, not so much.
And that was exactly what was described earlier.
See my bold, and last post. Pathfinder is a gross oversimplification in practice. If you are strong in terms of Wis and Cha, those are supporting factors helping you overcome your deficiency. And note that this is solely on PORTRAYAL, not mechanics. Int8 is gonna be int8 no matter how much you have in Wis and Cha, but you can hide it using Cha and find common sense solutions rather than intellectual ones (like asking the wizard).Basically just my way of saying "don't have to go around actively being a slack-jawed derp because you have one low mental stat."
Yes, but what others proposed was that the weakness became a strength, through skills.
This is what I have an issue with.
Finding a compensatory work around for a limitation is fine, finding a way to game the system so the weakness becomes a strength, not so much.
And that was exactly what was described earlier.
Hmm, I did something like this, but in a much more narrow approach. I made a character with low wis, but maxed out Sense Motive, and roleplayed him as socially empathic. But still rather disconnected from the natural world (survival, perception etc).
Training can overcome a lot, like an int8 dude maxing engineering would be good at what is covered by his skill. Not through natural talent, but through practice. Should you play him as a smart guy? No. He is not SMART. He is learned. There is a difference. A parrot can learn to perfectly repeat pi. Does not make it smart.
But that said, I am pro-growth as long as it does not affect game balance and mechanics. Someone with cha10 and ranks in all the social skills IS more socially graceful than a cha16 with no ranks in my book. He has a better chance of succeeding in all fields affecting other people's opinions and perceptions, and should be allowed to act as such. Does not make him better at sorcery, channeling energy or using innate spell-like abilities tho.
True story: my friends' neighbor, some years ago, was enrolled at the police academy and asked to interview me. When I asked what for, she replied, "because you seem like a criminal."
Low Charisma? Maybe. I've got a forceful personality, but a strong negative vibe on some kind of subliminal level (in Amber Diceless terms, I'm a "Bad Stuff" character, I guess). That's why I'd like to see "force of personality" divorced from "magnetism" in the game.
Or maybe that's another one of those flaws that isn't granting me a bonus feat. Dammit, TOZ!
Hey, if anyone in my game with a CHR 7 character say they want to play him as having a "magnetic personality" I'll allow it. Of course it will be the kind of magnetic that routinely attract steel swords, flails, maces and axes to his head. Like the efreet always says - "be careful what you wish for."
I cannot stand behind the notion that a human can be summed up in 6 stats and not take it with a grain of salt and few spoonfuls of suspended disbelief. On too many levels, the system crashes when measured against any level of applied logic or comparisons. In real life, we have NINE different acknowledged subgroups of intelligence (some are arguably covered by charisma, like the ability to break the "music code" and whatnot), and our brains have two halves with very different functions. But for a relatively casual game like Pathfinder, having 12+ mental stats (I can easily think of three different subgroups that wisdom affects: Wits, resilience, empathy, but if I sat down and considered it, I could likely double that) would be absurd.
Of all the things in fantasy roleplaying, this is what threatens your suspension of disbelief? Of course it is tremendously simplified and unrealistic, like virtually everything else in the game. This wouldn't even make my top 100.
I cannot stand behind the notion that a human can be summed up in 6 stats and not take it with a grain of salt and few spoonfuls of suspended disbelief. On too many levels, the system crashes when measured against any level of applied logic or comparisons. In real life, we have NINE different acknowledged subgroups of intelligence (some are arguably covered by charisma, like the ability to break the "music code" and whatnot), and our brains have two halves with very different functions. But for a relatively casual game like Pathfinder, having 12+ mental stats (I can easily think of three different subgroups that wisdom affects: Wits, resilience, empathy, but if I sat down and considered it, I could likely double that) would be absurd.Of all the things in fantasy roleplaying, this is what threatens your suspension of disbelief? Of course it is tremendously simplified and unrealistic, like virtually everything else in the game. This wouldn't even make my top 100.
Threaten? No. I can work with it. Simplicity has its own merit. Just pointing out that true ignorance is more than one low mental stat. And being a full blown derpasaurus takes some effort in my book.
Hmm, I did something like this...This is an awesome example of trying to make scores+stats work in roleplay.
...an int8 dude maxing engineering would be good at what is covered by his skill... He is not SMART. He is learned. There is a difference.This is my entire argument.
But that said, I am pro-growth as long as it does not affect game balance and mechanics.
But what you and Ashiel propose does affect game balance, in two ways:
1) If all social is handled by skills, above level 3, +1 INT mod > +1 CHR mod for anyone but a CHR-based caster or a performer. And I feel justified putting the "strictly greater than" on that, especially above level 5. At level 20, the comparison is laughable.
2) There are stat boosts every 4 levels, and a variety of magical items. I realize these are rare/expensive - but for game balance, they should be and are more effective than investing skill points. By level 4-6 you could easily be up to average in your stat (from 7). While you "waste" money on a stat-boost item, another fighter with more CHR and less STR is "wasting" money on a better sword to bring his fighting closer to yours. Bam, balance.
Someone with cha10 and ranks...has a better chance of succeeding in all fields affecting other people's opinions and perceptions, and should be allowed to act as such.
This character is socially learned, not socially graceful, in the same way that your low-INT engineer isn't smart. Yes, the character might have a better chance of succeeding than an untrained high-CHR character. But through training, not talent - his innate talent is average.
A few examples: a slightly repulsive dwarf with bad hygiene (low CHR) could give such great reasons for his requests that they tend to be granted (high Diplo mod). A quiet, reserved, and all-around forgettable character (low CHR) could be exceptionally good hiding facial expressions (good bluff), and extra scary when angry - precisely because he doesn't show emotion in other settings (good intimidate). Another character might be excellent at all three primary social skills, but <bad thing> holds him back from being as good as his equally-trained comrades.
This approach is balanced, and it's exactly the way all the other stats work. You can either compensate parts of the stat through skills/feats/etc, or you can actually increase the stat. The choice is yours.
Saying that skills entirely compensate for a low CHR:
A) encourages dumping CHR (more than the mechanics already do)
B) effectively gives 2-4 extra ability purchase points to non-CHR-dependent characters
C) by A, leads to characters who at low levels might as well not get involved in social encounters, railroading players into positions where they don't learn and grow as RPs
D) makes it easier for players to dominate all aspects of table time
E) doesn't bother me at all when scores are rolled ("ooh, you got a 5...that sucks, but you gotta put it somewhere"), but bothers the hell out of me if the player chose his low CHR to boost his STR.
Saying that skills entirely compensate for a low CHR
Is not what I am saying. I am arguing that you can compensate entirely for the SOCIAL aspect of the function of charisma. Just like a non-combaant can compensate for low strength with ranks in climb and swim. You will not be able to fight well, just like a cha7 with ranks in social skills won't be able to cast spells and such.
Social interaction is just one aspect of the stat after all.
My stance is still that a stat is only as useful as your class allows it to be. A wizard with str16 still won't be a good fighter. His shitty BAB and lack of combat abilities in terms of weapons, class abilities and armor selection is gonna leave him sub par. Just like a fighter with Cha16 will not be a good social character, because he does not have the skill points or have training in multiple social skills.
They might both be PASSABLE, but in neither case it is due to the choice of stats. Its due to their choice of class. A fighter will want great strength to do his thing. A wizard wants Int, and a bard wants Charisma. Because their classes allow them to benefit from the stat.
And no, I do NOT agree that "lowering strength has actual penalties while charisma does not". A wizard can put str7 no problem. He carries his pouch, his magical items and his hat. The rest is in bags of holding, and if he ever rolls an attack roll, he is a fish trying to ride a bicycle. He is trying to do something he will never be good at doing. On low levels, it might be a bit of a pain in the ass to have to ask the fighter to carry stuff, and he has to be ferried across streams and hoisted up inclines where other characters climb, but at lv5+ you are completely ignoring everything strength related. You fly where others climb or swim, and crafted your own bag of holding two levels ago. I rarely do this, however. Because I cannot relate to weaklings, and thus cannot portray my character properly.
There is a glaring exception to the stats/class relationship though: Dex, Con and Wis are good for everyone. This is due to them being tied to saves and survivability. Unlike Str, Int and Cha, lowering any of THOSE will yield proper penalties.
Just how the system works. Some stats are more dump-friendly than others. Is it a good thing? No, not really.
One of the few things I think 4e did right was the ability to use the higher of two options for saves (Str or Con for Fortitude. Dex or Int for Reflex. Wis of Cha for Will) which actually equalizes the stats somewhat.
|
|
Saying that skills entirely compensate for a low CHRIs not what I am saying. I am arguing that you can compensate entirely for the SOCIAL aspect of the function of charisma. Just like a non-combaant can compensate for low strength with ranks in climb and swim. You will not be able to fight well, just like a cha7 with ranks in social skills won't be able to cast spells and such.
Social interaction is just one aspect of the stat after all.
They can compensate for some aspects of strength through skills, but bending bars, opening jars, etc...are still strength checks.
If you say that diplomacy covers all social interactions, and that you can expand it to include any interactions you may have, you are functionally negating Charisma's effect in social interactions.
Social aspects are the primary aspects of Charisma. It is what charisma governs. It's like saying it only negated the health aspects of CON.
Again my frustration is that you seem to agree every other ability score is the default except for charisma.
Is not what I am saying. I am arguing that you can compensate entirely for the SOCIAL aspect of the function of charisma. Just like a non-combatant can compensate for low strength with ranks in climb and swim. You will not be able to fight well, just like a cha7 with ranks in social skills won't be able to cast spells and such.
Social interaction is just one aspect of the stat after all.
Out of curiosity only, how long have you been playing? I ask because I started with 2eAD&D (and have some, though limited, experience with the true "red box"). CHR has been described as measuring some combination of force of personality, social grace, and appearance...pretty much since Gygax put pen to paper. It has always has been the "social stat."
CHR-based spellcasting started in 3e. I'll grant you that it's an important aspect now. But, to me, it still feels bolted on. So to me, when I read the sentence that defines CHR (not in the dictionary, in the rulebook), I see the same thing the stat has meant for 20 years. And when I read "compensate entirely for the SOCIAL aspect of the function of charisma," I see "compensate entirely for the function of CHR."
I might be a stick in the mud, or old before my time, but I still feel like the basic thing that CHR measures is social ability, not spellcasting. INT and WIS measure mental ability first, and give bonuses to spellcasting second. Why is CHR so different?
Disclaimer: I'm not trying to imply anything about you as a player if you haven't been playing that long, or if you have and don't share my opinion. I'm just honestly curious how much prior-to-3e exposure you've had. Same goes for Ashiel.
So while I'll agree that he can avoid "most" of it, there are plenty of situations where he can be burnt. From what I'm hearing you say, the only way a fighter with low CHR gets burnt is he can't effectively multiclass into sorcerer...which is hardly a loss, and applies equally to the wizard with low STR (who can't multi into fighter effectively).
And, finally, when you say "I rarely do this, however. Because I cannot relate to weaklings, and thus cannot portray my character properly," you've hit at exactly how the system can encourage well-rounded stats even without much in the way of mechanical penalties. Your 5-STR halfling wizard is a puny weakling. A 5-CHR dwarf is a <something negative>. If anyone wants to play that sort of character, more power to them. But they should go ahead and play that character.
So let's take a look at the gear a low Strength wizard would have to compensate:
1. Bag of holding: the smallest weighs 15 pounds. Getting an item out is a full round action.
2. Traveler's outfit: 5 pounds.
3. Spell component pouch: 2 pounds.
So we are at 22 pounds. Doesn't sound like much but that means you need a Strength of 7 to avoid being encumbered.
Did you want to carry a dagger and/or quarterstaff too? Daggers are 1 pound and a quarterstaff is 4 pounds. If you want both, you are now at 27 pounds which means you need a 9 Strength to avoid being encumbered. If you want a crossbow just to have a ranged weapon at low levels, you have now added 5 pounds (that's only 10 bolts). You need a Strength of 10. With the weapons, I am assuming that you would want them handy. Digging around in a bag of holding for a full round is not always the best course of action especially if we're down to the wizard needing to get into mundane combat.
Now let's assume your wizard only uses his spells once he can afford a better bag of holding:
1. A Type II bag: 7 (gear) + 25 = 10 Strength
2. A Type III bag: 7 (gear) + 35 = 12 Strength
3. A Type IV bag: 7 (gear) + 60 = 16 Strength
Oh, you want to use a handy haversack? It weighs 5 pounds. That would be only 12 pounds which puts you at a 4 Strength but you can't carry as much. It's a better deal than a bag of holding though. It is actually superior to a bag of holding for a wizard, once he can afford it.
The bag of holding, while nice, does not really offset things as much as you would like. I didn't go overboard or assume too much either. It is very easy to get encumbered and a bag of holding doesn't really help the low strength character all that much.
a nice bit on wizards and encumbrance
Man, that haversack keeps looking better and better.
Saying that skills entirely compensate for a low CHRIs not what I am saying. I am arguing that you can compensate entirely for the SOCIAL aspect of the function of charisma. Just like a non-combaant can compensate for low strength with ranks in climb and swim. You will not be able to fight well, just like a cha7 with ranks in social skills won't be able to cast spells and such.
Social interaction is just one aspect of the stat after all.
They can compensate for some aspects of strength through skills, but bending bars, opening jars, etc...are still strength checks.
If you say that diplomacy covers all social interactions, and that you can expand it to include any interactions you may have, you are functionally negating Charisma's effect in social interactions.
Social aspects are the primary aspects of Charisma. It is what charisma governs. It's like saying it only negated the health aspects of CON.
Again my frustration is that you seem to agree every other ability score is the default except for charisma.
Diplomacy does not cover everything social. Diplomacy + Bluff + Intimidate covers most everything social. Just like covering your butt with ranks in Climb and Swim covers your butt for strength except for your hauling crap around score. Doing feats of strength requires ridiculous strength anyway, and it doesn't matter if you have 5 or 10 when the DC is over 20. And I would also like to point out that with skills, basic training and the first ranks give a bonus equal to having an 18 in the relevant stat (+4). Skills is 2/3 training and 1/3 ability. Just how the game is designed. Sure, this shafts charisma, and I have already addressed that it is dump-friendly, and nothing short of house-ruling initial attitudes to take charisma into consideration will make it matter more than it does per RAW.
@kikanaide: I have played since 2e, where charisma was 2/3rds about how many henchmen and how loyal your followers were towards you. Then there was the reaction adjustment. There was no rolls involved beside the initial attitude, and then RP took care of the rest.
Int, Wis and Cha are first and foremost caster stats as well. Caster: Amazing reality-warping power. Non-caster: skill points, will saves, modifiers to mostly untrained/secondary skills. Same can be applied for strength with combatant vs non-combatant.
As for wizards being grappled: Monsters are generally designed to be able to have a decent chance of grappling/tripping/bull rushing/what have you the front line dudes. Having average strength is not going to make a world of difference for a wizard in terms of CMD. It is, barring intervention through feats and items, going to stay abysmal. And if the wizard is stuck in an anti-magic field, his worst problem is not being kept from his bag of now mundane crap. His best option is running as fast as his skinny legs can carry him.
@Bob: Worn clothes do not count towards encumbrance. You won't be carrying an attire for every situation, but you have prestidigitation to clean yourself, and mending to patch it and keep it looking presentable.
And a wizard carrying 10 lbs of weapons have not read his job description IMO, and if you end up having to do meleé with your walking stick... well, let's just say that it is the last thing you generally want happening, and is about the equivalent of the melee focused fighter having to do ranged combat, and not carrying a bow. Sure the crossbow is a good back-up on levels 1-3, but hardly a must-have. And yes, the haversack is the superior item for a wizard, and the one I was thinking about really, I had forgotten that the "better" bags are unwieldy burlap nightmares meant for the party hauling mule- err... "fighter".
---
Anyway, point is; secondary stat does little for someone who does not benefit from it through choice of classes. A str10 wizard is as hopeless a combatant as a cha10 fighter is hopeless at charming evil sorceresses. Sure, the wizard can defeat a CR1/3 goblin, and the fighter can talk a barmaid into giving him an extra ladle of stew without upping the price. But in terms of doing heroic stuff, they are both going to find themselves inadequate. Sure, it is nice to have, just like I enjoy having a well equipped toolbox just in case I need to fix something around the house. But I am hardly a carpenter.
Note that I have never claimed, and would never claim, that a cha6 with ranks could ever match a full fledged bard with high charisma and training. All I am saying is that the difference between Cha10 and Cha16 is a modifier of 3 on social skills, and moving beyond that is a house rule. Which each GM is entitled to do in their game.
@Bob: Worn clothes do not count towards encumbrance.
Don't have time to touch the rest of this tonight, but I believe you won't find that rule in PF.
Guess I had time after all. At least enough time to retire my participation in this thread.
Diplomacy + Bluff + Intimidate covers most everything social.
I guess I just consider this an incredibly pessimistic view of human interaction. It's clear we're not going to agree here. I've tried to make a case that there are times when an ability check is more appropriate than extending skills further than RAW - at this point, it's up to individual GM's to decide how far the skills extend.
And I would also like to point out that with skills, basic training and the first ranks give a bonus equal to having an 18 in the relevant stat (+4). Skills is 2/3 training and 1/3 ability. Just how the game is designed.
Assuming class skills, or high levels, yes, of course. Our real argument isn't about how this plays out, though, it's what is covered by skills.
I have played since 2e, where charisma was 2/3rds about how many henchmen and how loyal your followers were towards you. Then there was the reaction adjustment. There was no rolls involved beside the initial attitude, and then RP took care of the rest.
Your DM never made you roll CHA checks? Weird...
Int, Wis and Cha are first and foremost caster stats as well. Caster: Amazing reality-warping power. Non-caster: skill points, will saves, modifiers to mostly untrained/secondary skills. Same can be applied for strength with combatant vs non-combatant.
We're fundamentally disagreeing, and unlikely to stop. I see stats as the basic mechanic by which you describe your character and his/her abilities. Want him/her to be strong? Put points in STR. Smart:INT. Good with people: CHR. Class abilities such as casting are just that - class abilities - and some/all benefit from one stat or another, true. But character comes before class (class can change, after all).
Anyway, point is; secondary stat does little for someone who does not benefit from it through choice of classes... All I am saying is that the difference between Cha10 and Cha16 is a modifier of 3 on social skills, and moving beyond that is a house rule.
I like my ability scores to have meaning, and the text, particularly in the 2e books but also 3.0/3.5/PF, supports that idea. If I was playing a game where the stats were "Melee, Ranged/Defense, Health, Magic A, Magic B, Magic C," I wouldn't be surprised that the only effects were mechanical. But that's not what the stats are, that's not what they've ever been, and removing their meaning as tools for describing the character is also a house rule.
You yourself seemed to go along with the idea that a guy with a 5 or 7 INT isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I don't quite get the distinction with CHA.
Guess I had time after all. At least enough time to retire my participation in this thread.
Diplomacy + Bluff + Intimidate covers most everything social.I guess I just consider this an incredibly pessimistic view of human interaction. It's clear we're not going to agree here. I've tried to make a case that there are times when an ability check is more appropriate than extending skills further than RAW - at this point, it's up to individual GM's to decide how far the skills extend.
Actually, this is something of a new approach for me, after playing a few of Paizo's adventure paths, which all invariably seems to expand on skill rolls to do more than what the framework might otherwise suggest.
Also, I find that d20+0 vs d20+5 does not lend a large favor to the Cha20 vs the Cha10. Just like my arm-wrestling house rule; I do not even allow someone with Str10 to even roll against someone with Str20, no matter what the rules say. Conan would not lose against the women he picks up. Ever.
And I would also like to point out that with skills, basic training and the first ranks give a bonus equal to having an 18 in the relevant stat (+4). Skills is 2/3 training and 1/3 ability. Just how the game is designed.Assuming class skills, or high levels, yes, of course. Our real argument isn't about how this plays out, though, it's what is covered by skills.
I have played since 2e, where charisma was 2/3rds about how many henchmen and how loyal your followers were towards you. Then there was the reaction adjustment. There was no rolls involved beside the initial attitude, and then RP took care of the rest.Your DM never made you roll CHA checks? Weird...
Yeah, we did that too, but mostly to do stuff along the lines of "Are there any girls there? If there is, I wanna DO them!" :P
When we RP'ed, we usually RP'ed. DM just made sure to apply the reaction adjustment to set the initial attitude. Meaning my bard Ray (LONG before everybody loves Raymond, thank you) with his Cha17 usually met smiling people and landed the hot chicks. While the unwashed half-elf thief whose name eludes me had to make do with my social table scraps.
Int, Wis and Cha are first and foremost caster stats as well. Caster: Amazing reality-warping power. Non-caster: skill points, will saves, modifiers to mostly untrained/secondary skills. Same can be applied for strength with combatant vs non-combatant.We're fundamentally disagreeing, and unlikely to stop. I see stats as the basic mechanic by which you describe your character and his/her abilities. Want him/her to be strong? Put points in STR. Smart:INT. Good with people: CHR. Class abilities such as casting are just that - class abilities - and some/all benefit from one stat or another, true. But character comes before class (class can change, after all).
Charisma is more than being good with people. Being good with people is part of charisma. Charisma is your innate social graces, musical and artistic talent, magical knack, how you are able to relate to animals, etc. And yes, being able to look good even covered in blood and wearing burlap.
Anyway, point is; secondary stat does little for someone who does not benefit from it through choice of classes... All I am saying is that the difference between Cha10 and Cha16 is a modifier of 3 on social skills, and moving beyond that is a house rule.I like my ability scores to have meaning, and the text, particularly in the 2e books but also 3.0/3.5/PF, supports that idea. If I was playing a game where the stats were "Melee, Ranged/Defense, Health, Magic A, Magic B, Magic C," I wouldn't be surprised that the only effects were mechanical. But that's not what the stats are, that's not what they've ever been, and removing their meaning as tools for describing the character is also a house rule.
You yourself seemed to go along with the idea that a guy with a 5 or 7 INT isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. I don't quite get the distinction with CHA.
Appearances and effects. Someone with low int and one field of specialty is easily sunk outside his fields. With charisma, you cover a whole lot more through skills, because they are fewer, and thus more easily covered. Sure, I'd applaud that you make your character APPEAR less charismatic (ie handsome), but when you go to actually affect people, your totals in your "Affecting people the way I want to" score applies.
I think we are thinking of two different things. I am speaking of your ability to gab (aka RP) like you know what you're doing vs having to be a quivering mass of lacking self-esteem due to having less than 10 in cha, despite extensive training. Not Diplo/Bluff/Intimidate = Charisma. If you put 5 in charisma you are still going to be horribly disadvantaged when charisma stuff comes along.
Case in point: Are you as clumsy at speaking with women and being romantic as you were in middle school? Socializing is as much about learning as it is about innate talent. You can look at children and see that there are "easier" children and "difficult" children. Some are a joy to be around, always smiling, making grandma happy to come visit. And then there are those who just rub people the wrong way and whine about everything. When they grow up, they learn how to behave... mostly >_>
|
|
Case in point: Are you as clumsy at speaking with women and being romantic as you were in middle school? Socializing is as much about learning as it is about innate talent. You can look at children and see that there are "easier" children and "difficult" children. Some are a joy to be around, always smiling, making grandma happy to come visit. And then there are those who just rub people the wrong way and whine about everything. When they grow up, they learn how to behave... mostly >_>
And children aren't as strong as adults when they grow up...
The game has a mechanic for improving social skills when you get older...at the same time you reduce your physical skills.
It also has a mechanic for improving any ability score. Every 4 levels or with magic items.
You wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't apply this mechanic to any other ability score. You wouldn't say any other set of skills would be able to cover as much beyond it's stated scope. And frankly, I don't think you are saying intimidate and Bluff do go beyond scope from what I've read so far.
But for some reason, you want to apply it to charisma?
Diplomacy isn't "gabbing". It is a specific task.
Case in point: Are you as clumsy at speaking with women and being romantic as you were in middle school? Socializing is as much about learning as it is about innate talent. You can look at children and see that there are "easier" children and "difficult" children. Some are a joy to be around, always smiling, making grandma happy to come visit. And then there are those who just rub people the wrong way and whine about everything. When they grow up, they learn how to behave... mostly >_>And children aren't as strong as adults when they grow up...
Replace it with late teens then. Starting age for human PCs. Argument still valid. Experience leads to confidence.
The game has a mechanic for improving social skills when you get older...at the same time you reduce your physical skills.
It also has a mechanic for improving any ability score. Every 4 levels or with magic items.
This old harp again? You really going to argue that something that barely happens to 1% of the world (getting to lv8, where you gain another modifier from increasing stats) is a more valid representation of growth than SKILL POINTS?
You wouldn't/couldn't/shouldn't apply this mechanic to any other ability score. You wouldn't say any other set of skills would be able to cover as much beyond it's stated scope. And frankly, I don't think you are saying intimidate and Bluff do go beyond scope from what I've read so far.
If you had paid any attention to my posts, I have done so all the time. Let me go though ALL the skills and find multiple purposes:
Acrobatics: This skill does a LOT as it is, but I have used it for more, like bracing yourself better to hold a rope (extension of balance).
Appraise: I use for Tax papers, financial insights and similar (Source: Neverwinter Nights 2)
Bluff: Any social situation requiring facetiousness not covered by disguise.
Climb: Pull-ups, arm-wrestling (shake hands with a rock-climber and learn why), tug-o-war and so forth.
Craft: Repairs all across the board. Armorsmithing I have allowed to be used to spot weaknesses in constructs (double as knowledge for monster lore in regards to weaknesses).
Diplomacy: Any verbal or nonverbal situation where you want to convey someone with the intention to influence someone to regard you in a better light.
Disable Device: Not much to add here. Can't think of applicable areas that it doesn't already cover under RAW.
Disguise: Dress up, and gain bonuses on social rolls when using attire in relevant setting. Also dress according to social norms if you make a knowledge Local to learn of it, usually avoiding the initial attitude hit of looking like an outsider.
Escape Artist: Everything related to wriggling. Pretty versatile as it is. I also allow to take the higher of CMB and Escape Artist when tying someone up. Also knots in general.
Fly: Parachutes, gliders, anything related to flying, not just spell or wings. Also allow use to break fall if you have something to use for impromptu wind-breaker (like a cloak) to reduce falling damage by 10 feet for every 10 past the first 15. 25: 20 feet. 35: 30 feet. Etc.
Handle Animal: Err, hardly ever see anyone use this skill. Few druids in my games. Can't think of anything new here.
Heal: Diagnostics, knowledge of human body, massage.
Intimidate: Impress people with presence (Source: Kingmaker Parts 4 & 5), silence a room
Knowledge: I tend to cram almost every field of science I can imagine into a suitable knowledge. Engineering is all math, physics and whatnot. Local is social studies, anthropology and such. Etc.
Linguistics: Everything that has to do with languages. Understanding dialects and can also be used to better communications if someone has a strange dialect, removing an otherwise imposed penalty to social skills.
Perception: Does what it needs to do already.
Perform: Depends on the perform in question.
Profession: Can substitute low-DC checks in other skills that are relevant to your profession. Example: If you have Profession (Tailor) you can make clothes even though production normally requires craft. Also the measure of how successful you are if you pursue something to earn money.
Ride: Replace CMB to stay on a bucking mount type creature (like a horse) if you are trying to break it.
Sense Motive: Read a room, learn about people through reading reactions, to facilitate better communication and avoid making a faux pas.
Sleight of Hand: Juggling, Indiana Jones switch, most things involving manual dexterity that is not covered by other rules.
Spellcraft: Does what it does.
Stealth: Hide something, blend in with a crowd
Survival: Does all things outdoorsy not covered by other skills.
Swim: Were there no rules on holding your breath, I would have used swim to affect it, using Con as base stat instead of Str. As it is, I don't think I can think of anything else.
Use Magic Device: Well, this skill pretty much says it all. I would allow you to use it instead of Bluff and Intimidate in regards to intelligent magical items.
Now, sure, I know that a chuck of this is borderline or even full blown house-ruling. But I am more pissed that the game screws over skills than charisma. After lv5, spells does everything skills does, only infinitely better. This is my attempt to balance that a little.
But for some reason, you want to apply it to charisma?
Diplomacy isn't "gabbing". It is a specific task.
"You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem."
I'd say that is gabbing in general. And if you are talking about social situations where you are not affecting anyone, then I say "why roll at all?"
@Bob: Worn clothes do not count towards encumbrance. You won't be carrying an attire for every situation, but you have prestidigitation to clean yourself, and mending to patch it and keep it looking presentable.
And a wizard carrying 10 lbs of weapons have not read his job description IMO, and if you end up having to do meleé with your walking stick... well, let's just say that it is the last thing you generally want happening, and is about the equivalent of the melee focused fighter having to do ranged combat, and not carrying a bow. Sure the crossbow is a good back-up on levels 1-3, but hardly a must-have. And yes, the haversack is the superior item for a wizard, and the one I was thinking about really, I had forgotten that the "better" bags are unwieldy burlap nightmares meant for the party hauling mule- err... "fighter".
Go back and read what I was saying. I was very clear that it was the low level wizard that may need those weapons in a pinch. You'll notice that I said that there is a point where the wizard will rely only on his spells so the math did not include weapons.
Clothing does count toward your encumbrance in Pathfinder. Whether or not it should is a different issue but currently it does.
This old harp again? You really going to argue that something that barely happens to 1% of the world (getting to lv8, where you gain another modifier from increasing stats) is a more valid representation of growth than SKILL POINTS?
This is something I agree with you on. Let's look at it another way:
Young Creature (CR –1)
Creatures with the young template are immature specimens of the base creature. You can also use this simple template to easily create a smaller variant of a monster. This template cannot be applied to creatures that increase in power through aging or feeding (such as dragons or barghests) or creatures that are Fine-sized.
Quick Rules: +2 to all Dex-based rolls, –2 to all other rolls, –2 hp/HD.
Rebuild Rules: Size decrease by one category; AC reduce natural armor by –2 (minimum +0); Attacks decrease damage dice by 1 step; Ability Scores –4 Strength, –4 Con, +4 size bonus to Dex.
So you do improve your strength as you age. Once you get out of Adulthood, you see a decline in your physical stats.
|
I have an interest in when people would make a character test against a raw stat. It seems to be one of the contentious points of the thread, and I normally look for a skill to test against rather than a raw stat. The rules clearly have the raw strength check for breaking items. You simply can't train that, but what about the other 5 stats?
What would a raw constitution check look like? Would this be better represented by a fortitude save? If so does this carry forth to wisdon and dexterity for will and reflex saves?
That leaves intelligence and charisma. These both have a number of skills that Kamelguru pointed out. When is an intelligence test not a knowledge test? When is a charisma test not a diplomacy, intimidate or bluff test? If someone has invested in these skills is it fair and right to make them test otherwise? After all its not that many low charisma characters that put skills into a charisma based skill.
As I didn't really want this to be a charisma based thread, I'm really interested in the other 4 stats. Wisdom represents a number of things, but which of them is not represented by a perception check, survival check or will save? (I found the fact that animals normally have above average wisdom stats interesting).
I have an interest in when people would make a character test against a raw stat. It seems to be one of the contentious points of the thread, and I normally look for a skill to test against rather than a raw stat. The rules clearly have the raw strength check for breaking items. You simply can't train that, but what about the other 5 stats?
What would a raw constitution check look like? Would this be better represented by a fortitude save? If so does this carry forth to wisdon and dexterity for will and reflex saves?
That leaves intelligence and charisma. These both have a number of skills that Kamelguru pointed out. When is an intelligence test not a knowledge test? When is a charisma test not a diplomacy, intimidate or bluff test? If someone has invested in these skills is it fair and right to make them test otherwise? After all its not that many low charisma characters that put skills into a charisma based skill.
As I didn't really want this to be a charisma based thread, I'm really interested in the other 4 stats. Wisdom represents a number of things, but which of them is not represented by a perception check, survival check or will save? (I found the fact that animals normally have above average wisdom stats interesting).
Raw Constitution checks are already in the rules as stabilization checks to keep from dying, and also is used for forced marching, starvation, thirst, and suffocation. Raw intelligence checks stand in for knowledge checks when the PC has no trained knowledge that would fit, but that's not really what you're looking for, I think there is another situation that does use raw intelligence in the rules but I can't think of it. Dexterity, and a possible feat or trait, is the only thing that affects initiative, and also determines your AoO's using Combat Reflexes, but that's a stretch.
I have an interest in when people would make a character test against a raw stat. It seems to be one of the contentious points of the thread, and I normally look for a skill to test against rather than a raw stat. The rules clearly have the raw strength check for breaking items. You simply can't train that, but what about the other 5 stats?
What would a raw constitution check look like? Would this be better represented by a fortitude save? If so does this carry forth to wisdon and dexterity for will and reflex saves?
That leaves intelligence and charisma. These both have a number of skills that Kamelguru pointed out. When is an intelligence test not a knowledge test? When is a charisma test not a diplomacy, intimidate or bluff test? If someone has invested in these skills is it fair and right to make them test otherwise? After all its not that many low charisma characters that put skills into a charisma based skill.
As I didn't really want this to be a charisma based thread, I'm really interested in the other 4 stats. Wisdom represents a number of things, but which of them is not represented by a perception check, survival check or will save? (I found the fact that animals normally have above average wisdom stats interesting).
I'll bite, and gve a couple of examples of each since I do use raw stat checks pretty frequently.
Str - breaking stuff, holding on to a ledge/branch desperately grabbed to break a fall
Dex - catching something another character throws to you, trying to grab something to break a fall
Con - running/swimming for long periods, withstanding environmental effects
Int - player has character with great intelligence but doesn't think of something obvious, (rarely use) player has dumb character but comes uop with brilliant plan
Wis - whenever players are discussing showing something showing suicidally poor judgment even though their characters have high Wisdom, whenever characters forget to use their skills like Sense Motive a Wis check for them to remember
Chr - inspiring people to follow you into battle, any social interaction that doesn't fall neatly into Diplomacy, Bluff or Intimidate
I have an interest in when people would make a character test against a raw stat. It seems to be one of the contentious points of the thread, and I normally look for a skill to test against rather than a raw stat. The rules clearly have the raw strength check for breaking items. You simply can't train that, but what about the other 5 stats?
What would a raw constitution check look like? Would this be better represented by a fortitude save? If so does this carry forth to wisdon and dexterity for will and reflex saves?
That leaves intelligence and charisma. These both have a number of skills that Kamelguru pointed out. When is an intelligence test not a knowledge test? When is a charisma test not a diplomacy, intimidate or bluff test? If someone has invested in these skills is it fair and right to make them test otherwise? After all its not that many low charisma characters that put skills into a charisma based skill.
As I didn't really want this to be a charisma based thread, I'm really interested in the other 4 stats. Wisdom represents a number of things, but which of them is not represented by a perception check, survival check or will save? (I found the fact that animals normally have above average wisdom stats interesting).
I'll bite, and gve a couple of examples of each since I do use raw stat checks pretty frequently.
Str - breaking stuff, holding on to a ledge/branch desperately grabbed to break a fall
Dex - catching something another character throws to you, trying to grab something to break a fall
You are aware that the climb skill covers breaking falls and catching others when falling?
And on that note, I would have edited my last post for climb to include catching something thrown. It's just about perfect for it. Sure, it seems more logical that dex should be relevant, but then again, Strength is used to hit more accurately, so not a huge stretch.
|
|
Thanks for the response :)
there do seem to be more constitution checks in Pathfinder! I checked weather out, but cold works off fortitude. If trapped in an avalanche however you need to make constitution checks to avoid dieing.
I can see the dex for catching things. Climb does cover catching someone else, but that is slightly different. I could see an argument for using a reflex save, but I think the raw dex is more appropriate in my opinion. Initiative is more or less a dex check as pointed out. Hadn't thought of it that way.
I'm sure you could use perform oratory to inspire people to follow you into a fight, kind of Henry V style...
I've never really found wizards with crossbows being that useful. I mean, even if they have a +2 to hit from Dex (a fair assumption in many cases but not guaranteed) they're basically shooting vs AC for an average of 4.5 damage. However, a random goon in scale mail has a 14 AC. 16 if they have a shield. 18 if they have a tower shield (NPC warriors are proficient with all shields).
Loading and firing a crossbow is a waste of time. Acid splash or daze is where it's at. 1d3 ranged touch attack? Suddenly that AC means diddly. Or will save to lose your actions? Well at least you're keeping that orc warrior with his 1d12+3 greataxe from planting it someone's head on his turn!
I'd rather have a 7 strength wizard backing me up with at-will cantrips than have a 10 strength wizard trying to shoot some mook with a crossbow.
You are aware that the climb skill covers breaking falls and catching others when falling?And on that note, I would have edited my last post for climb to include catching something thrown. It's just about perfect for it. Sure, it seems more logical that dex should be relevant, but then again, Strength is used to hit more accurately, so not a huge stretch.
Aware of it. Just disagree with it. I think Dex check is better. and Dex and Str for catching someone falling. I don't find Clinb to have anything at all to do with catching something thrown.
|
|
I have an interest in when people would make a character test against a raw stat. It seems to be one of the contentious points of the thread, and I normally look for a skill to test against rather than a raw stat. The rules clearly have the raw strength check for breaking items. You simply can't train that, but what about the other 5 stats?
What would a raw constitution check look like? Would this be better represented by a fortitude save? If so does this carry forth to wisdon and dexterity for will and reflex saves?
That leaves intelligence and charisma. These both have a number of skills that Kamelguru pointed out. When is an intelligence test not a knowledge test? When is a charisma test not a diplomacy, intimidate or bluff test? If someone has invested in these skills is it fair and right to make them test otherwise? After all its not that many low charisma characters that put skills into a charisma based skill.
As I didn't really want this to be a charisma based thread, I'm really interested in the other 4 stats. Wisdom represents a number of things, but which of them is not represented by a perception check, survival check or will save? (I found the fact that animals normally have above average wisdom stats interesting).
I'll bite, and gve a couple of examples of each since I do use raw stat checks pretty frequently.
Str - breaking stuff, holding on to a ledge/branch desperately grabbed to break a fall
Dex - catching something another character throws to you, trying to grab something to break a fall
You are aware that the climb skill covers breaking falls and catching others when falling?
And on that note, I would have edited my last post for climb to include catching something thrown. It's just about perfect for it. Sure, it seems more logical that dex should be relevant, but then again, Strength is used to hit more accurately, so not a huge stretch.
"If someone climbing above you or adjacent to you falls, you can attempt to catch the falling character if he or she is within your reach. Doing so requires a successful melee touch attack against the falling character (though he or she can voluntarily forgo any Dexterity bonus to AC if desired). If you hit, you must immediately attempt a Climb check (DC = wall’s DC + 10). Success indicates that you catch the falling character, but his total weight, including equipment, cannot exceed your heavy load limit or you automatically fall. If you fail your Climb check by 4 or less, you fail to stop the character’s fall but don’t lose your grip on the wall. If you fail by 5 or more, you fail to stop the character’s fall and begin falling as well."
Or in other words, it's a melee touch attack to catch, and a climb check to not fall when suddenly much more weight is on you while you are climbing.
I know in the 3E (maybe 3.5 too) one of the examples of play included Lidda having to grab a scroll case as it was flowing in some water. It too was a melee touch attack roll.