|
I was just in the mustache thread and I had a question, so I thought I'd ask it in a fresh thread rather than derailing that one.
Question: In the 'old versions' of this game system, you used to get a quick statistics lesson about how 10 was average and above and below that was increasingly rare towards the end of that stat. Is this no longer the case?
It boggles the mind to see people arguing against this stance. It's like something is fundamentally wrong with their grasp of logic.
I've seen an amazingly well-played dwarven monk with a 5 cha. He plays being awful with people really well. He has fun. We have fun with him. He's not overpowering the game and we still have a team effort in our adventure. This is good, despite how much people might rant and rave about the min-maxery of a character having 5 cha.
With a 5 Cha, as I understand it, you're in the bottom 5% of all characters ever made, everywhere. You'd have less charm than the village idiot. Considerably less, per pg 308 in the GMG, that slobbering monstrosity has got a 10! In fact, with a 5, you'd probably have to Take 10 just to say hello without reducing someone's attitude about you. How does your PARTY stand you, let alone stop the local village from burning you at the stake?
By the way, a Cha of 7 makes you less socially able than 84% of the people you meet. That's heroic? Even taking this up to an 8 makes that 75%.
As an aside, I'd wonder what the bell curve looks like for Pathfinder characters.
Back to the question - does the curve still exist and is it supposed to impact how we depict our game worlds?
As a bonus question, aside from impacting skill checks, does Charisma actually do anything at the typical table these days?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In defense of 5 cha dwarves everywhere....
With a 5 Cha, as I understand it, you're in the bottom 5% of all characters ever made, everywhere. You'd have less charm than the village idiot.
The village idiot may in fact be quite charming. They often do well in politics. Better than smart people with the personality of cardboard anyway (i'm looking at YOU gore)
Considerably less, per pg 308 in the GMG, that slobbering monstrosity has got a 10! In fact, with a 5, you'd probably have to Take 10 just to say hello without reducing someone's attitude about you. How does your PARTY stand you, let alone stop the local village from burning you at the stake?
Healing spells
Profession: BrewerProfession: Cook.
We've saved each others lives.
Friendship
The animal companion makes the introductions for me and shows the innkeeper that i don't bite.
By the way, a Cha of 7 makes you less socially able than 84% of the people you meet. That's heroic? Even taking this up to an 8 makes that 75%.
No, running back into a burning inn to rescue the people who spit on me at dinner makes my characters heroic.
As an aside, I'd wonder what the bell curve looks like for Pathfinder characters.
Twin peaks. One big mountain one small one.
As a bonus question, aside from impacting skill checks, does Charisma actually do anything at the typical table these days?
I've had it influence which character the NPCs prefer to react with, and general starting attitude.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is by far and away the first dump stat and likely always has been. It needs to have a secondary effect outside of skill checks or else it will always be dumped.
Anyone else find it hilarious how most gorups always have one guy that has really high charisma?
"Hello I'm Sir Face of Charmingston. Do not be alramed heh, you're merely feeling the efects of an arbitrarily high diplomacy roll-please no autographs-allow me to introduce my companions.
This is Noodly mcpizzaoldface the highly intelligent and all powerful wizard.
This is Loner McGothkid the stealthy assassin.
And this is AM BARBARIAN I here tell he sunders things.
Don't mind their smell or their terrible fashion sense, please, we'll just pay less than normal for a night here and, heh, be out of your hair.
Oh? Oh them? Oh they're just my fangirls, just ignore them. I certainly do.
Ciao~!!"
I think the bell curve exists at least for the general population of whatever world you are playing in, even if it doesn't directly apply to the PCs.
I have no problem with 5 CHA characters if they are played the right way. Actually after reading this thread I'm interested in making a Wizard with a huge INT but super low CHA kind of like Sheldon from BBT.
However I do have a problem with people always using CHA as a dump stat and not playing the character as an unlikeable @#$$. For example saying that their character is dark and broody and doesn't say much isn't low CHA. That's Clint Eastwood's character in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly who had CHA coming out the wazoo. Having mega low CHA is always babling on at the wrong time, or saying the most offensive thing possible but unaware of it, or having a gross skin disease that makes you ugly and nobody wants to come anywhere near you lest they catch it.
However I do have a problem with people always using CHA as a dump stat and not playing the character as an unlikeable @#$$.
There's a few ways to do it. Curmudgeonly donkey. Wallflower level shy, brutally honest, insufferable know it all, non stop chatter about nothing,
For example saying that their character is dark and broody and doesn't say much isn't low CHA. That's Clint Eastwood's character in The Good, The Bad and the Ugly who had CHA coming out the wazoo.
Well with a low cha you do the exact same dark and broody thing... but the townspeople reach for torches and pitchforks instead of giving you your own seat at the bar. A little fear goes a long way. A LOT of fear goes too far.
Having mega low CHA is always babling on at the wrong time, or saying the most offensive thing possible but unaware of it, or having a gross skin disease that makes you ugly and nobody wants to come anywhere near you lest they catch it.
The last is more along the lines of a 3.
I play a gnome dragon shaman with 14 Int, 8 Wis, and 20+ Cha, and those stats really affect how I play the character. I'm usually good at coming up with a decent plan, really good at convincing others to follow it, and there is usally a common-sense flaw I over look in my master plan.
I also play a dark whisper gnome ninja (3.5 conversion, not the new kind) with 12 or 14 Int, 18 Wis, and 10 Cha. He tends to be taciturn, terse, even laconic at times. He's pretty bright, very insightful, but has difficulty exerting his point of view at times.
But actions can speak louder than stats. Being friendly and helpful can lead to positive feelings, even if you greet people by saying "Hi! Can I help you with that broccoli stuck between your teeth?"
I was just in the mustache thread and I had a question, so I thought I'd ask it in a fresh thread rather than derailing that one.
Thank you.
Question: In the 'old versions' of this game system, you used to get a quick statistics lesson about how 10 was average and above and below that was increasingly rare towards the end of that stat. Is this no longer the case?
That is a good question, and I don't know the answer.
It used to be that a human had no stat penalties or bonuses, so 10 was the average for every stat when we were discussing humans.
Of course now humans do get a stat boost, though it's variable where it is applied. Is 10 still the average? Probably.
Keep in mind that if there is a stat bonus or penalty, then the average stat becomes 12 or 8 respectively.
It boggles the mind to see people arguing against this stance. It's like something is fundamentally wrong with their grasp of logic.
How so?
With a 5 Cha, as I understand it, you're in the bottom 5% of all characters ever made, everywhere. You'd have less charm than the village idiot.
Ahhh...so are we assuming dwarves have an average Cha of 10 now?
Cha 5 dwarf is like Cha 7 human in terms of likelyhood.
Considerably less, per pg 308 in the GMG, that slobbering monstrosity has got a 10!
And why is that do you suppose?
In fact, with a 5, you'd probably have to Take 10 just to say hello without reducing someone's attitude about you. How does your PARTY stand you, let alone stop the local village from burning you at the stake?
Remember that Cha refers to many things. Someone with a low Charisma may be disgusting, unpleasant and rude, and I've seen it played that way.
However, a 5 Cha could also mean you are not worthy of attention, with a complete lack of presence. You may have difficulty getting people to pay attention to you.
Or perhaps a 5 Cha means you are really pitiable. Maybe a perpetual victim whiner who loves to share their misery with others, and those others just want to get away from you.
A low Charisma can mean many things.
By the way, a Cha of 7 makes you less socially able than 84% of the people you meet. That's heroic? Even taking this up to an 8 makes that 75%.
Since when is heroism defined as "Charismatic"?
Don't tell Luke Skywalker!
As an aside, I'd wonder what the bell curve looks like for Pathfinder characters.
Don't know, but I would suspect it was more of an even spread and less of a bell curve with PC's. More very high, more very low.
Back to the question - does the curve still exist and is it supposed to impact how we depict our game worlds?
When we are discussing NPC's, I would suggest probably so.
As a bonus question, aside from impacting skill checks, does Charisma actually do anything at the typical table these days?
Only subjectively.
Unless you play a class that needs it, cha will always be the safest dump stat. Unless you get a generous point buy or some great rolls, you have to dump something.
It's the hardest-to-define stat, and a hard thing to define IRL. I think my "charisma" varies a lot more than my strength or intelligence on a given day, or even around a given person or place. Sometimes, I want to make a good impression. Usually, I don't care what people think of me, and make no special effort to be liked or disliked, particularly around people I don't know or will ever see again.
In the game, adventurers are the stars of the show. They like each other well enough to be a team, and face things most people would die from. There are enough things in the game to strain credulity as it is. Does everybody have to like you, too?
Failing a diplomacy check can suck, but failing a swim check is usually worse, in my experience. You can win the king's favor by rescuing the princess later on, but if you drown, you'll need to make a new character. Probably another one with a low charisma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you want a bell curve, roll dice. You're going to distort it a bit by rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest as well as adding various racial bonuses but it will still be there (just higher). Rolling tends to eliminate / lesson the dump stat effect as well.
You can allow PCs to place their rolls for each characteristics allowing them to construct decent characters of whatever class they want. Although this does tend to create a bit of a dump stat as they drop their lowest score into a given ability. That lowest roll is unlikely to be as low as a point buy dump stat.
Of course, die rolls are not predictable / "fair" and some characters may have an advantage or disadvantage over others. But then, who said life was fair?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless you play a class that needs it, cha will always be the safest dump stat. Unless you get a generous point buy or some great rolls, you have to dump something.
Where does it say that? You don't have to dump anything unless you play with something like the elite array wich includes an 8 otherwise it is a choice you make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been assured that a 7 in a stat is horrific, just the absolute worst you can have. When I brought up the fact that a 7 is no more exceptionally terrible than a 13 is exceptionally gifted I got a blank stare and was again assured a 7 was still horrible. Some people refuse to believe the math, let them think what they think.
If your character had a 13 charisma would you make a point of playing up how well mannered and socially gifted they are? Of course not, it's hardly a blip on the radar compared to your 20 int or str. Stats might have inflated since red box, I have trouble moving past those old stats though.
The bell curve may or may not exist in the game world but since we are talking about PCs the things change, you are now looking at a probability of success.
Let's say one 1st level human fighter with CHA 10 puts one skill point in diplomacy, for a total of diplomacy 1.
And we have one 1st level dwarf cleric with CHA 5 that puts one skill point in diplomacy, for a total of diplomacy 1.
They both have an equal chance of succeding at any task that requires diplomacy.
|
I've been assured that a 7 in a stat is horrific, just the absolute worst you can have. When I brought up the fact that a 7 is no more exceptionally terrible than a 13 is exceptionally gifted I got a blank stare and was again assured a 7 was still horrible. Some people refuse to believe the math, let them think what they think.
If your character had a 13 charisma would you make a point of playing up how well mannered and socially gifted they are? Of course not, it's hardly a blip on the radar compared to your 20 int or str. Stats might have inflated since red box, I have trouble moving past those old stats though.
Actually you got it wrong - a 7 is equivalent to a 14. Average if 10.5 and this is 10.5 +/- 3.5 or alternativly 3+4 or 18-4.
Apart from the math - I absolutely agree.
So why should someone with a Cha of 5 be burned on the stake if we don't have the opposite (crowds gathering to stare at the beauty) with a Cha 16 person - not even contemplating someone with Cha 18 or behold the Sorcerer with a 20.
People should fall to their knees seeing someone with such high charisma if the same logic applies that they burn their counterparts with lower charisma.
Unless you play a class that needs it, cha will always be the safest dump stat. Unless you get a generous point buy or some great rolls, you have to dump something.Where does it say that? You don't have to dump anything unless you play with something like the elite array wich includes an 8 otherwise it is a choice you make.
It depends on what you have to work with, doesn't it?
If you're playing a wizard with elite array, where will you put the 15? The 8?
Unless you're going for a concept of "the not-so-competent wizard," the 15 goes in int. Putting the 8 in anything but charisma has a mechanical effect on your character's survivability. Strength? You'll have a hard time carrying basic gear and swimming. Dex? You'll have -1 to your AC (pretty sucky for a no-armor character) and reflex saves to avoid falling in the water-filled trap where you'll have to swim. Con? You'll start with 5 hit points and -1 fort saves. Wisdom? -1 to will saves.
The fighter is a sort of opposite to the wizard. He'll want high physical stats, but an 8 int will leave him with one skill point. He'll want a 13 to qualify for certain feats, and to be able to both climb AND swim well. An 8 wis? That dreaded low will save. An 8 cha? Well, he's just not all that charming. Probably smells like a dead monster. He killed it because he was strong, not because he could persuade it.
The game rewards high ability scores where you use them most. There's certainly a lot of flexibility for various builds, but the least relevant stat for most character types is cha, and it has been since OD&D. If one character in your party has a decent cha, you don't need it at all. They can be the "face." The wizard will be the "brains" and the fighter will be the "muscle."
Charisma matters more than it did pre-3x, but it's still the best stat to dump for most builds. If my character doesn't need it for a class-related ability, and doesn't dream of ruling a kingdom, I'll dump cha to 7, and use those 4 points to make sure one of his actually relevant stats is good enough to get him to 2nd level.
You don't have to play it that way, but all 12s is just boring to me. YMMV.
No, the bell curve hasn't gone, it just doesn't apply to adventurers.
Or do over 70% of your characters have attribute scores between 8 and 12 only?
Adventurers may have extreme stats (6 Str, 20 Chr female Sorc or 6 Int, 20 Str male Barbarian) and this has nothing to do with the bell curve.
Bell Curve stats:
4d6 drop low = ~14 in all stats as an average
25 pt buy = 15/14/14/13/13/12, ~13.5
20 pt buy = 14/13/13/13/13/13, ~13.2
15 pt buy = 13/13/13/12/12/12, ~12.5
Base NPC = 13/12/11/10/9/8, ~10.5
Elite NPC = 15/14/13/12/10/8, ~12
Base Monster = 11/11/11/10/10/10, ~10.5
Numbers are approximate because those are base stat arrays, averaging everything across all 6 stats. There are still the racial bonuses to add in which will skew things slightly.
To get the actual bell curve, I'd have to dig out my simulator again and get the statistical model. Yeah, I'm that big a geek.
--JD
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not only did early editions of the game assume that the distribution of attributes amongst the general population followed a bell curve, they assumed that player characters WERE typical members of the population who achieved greatness through their deeds - rather than starting out with the advantages conferred by atypical attribute scores. There was also an assumption that certain character classes were far more difficult to gain entry to and their incidence amongst the population was much lower.
Neither approach is inherently better than the other, but they do reflect very different assumptions about the kinds of fantasy tropes that the game is intended to simulate. Early fantasy RPGs draw much of their inspiration from Sword & Sorcery fiction where the heroes are more human in scale than they tend to be in High Fantasy. Their ambitions often revolve around getting rich or having interesting experiences rather than saving the world.
However, later editions of D&D have tended to draw more inspiration from high fantasy novels where the characters tend to start out as "special snowflakes" - the lost heirs of important bloodlines or the inheritors of important artifacts. It's easy to point to the release of the original Dragonlance modules as an important turning point in this trend, but I would argue that TSR was merely responding to broader market conditions when they embraced that style of fantasy - this was the period when authors such as David Eddings and Terry Brooks were at the height of their popularity.
By the end of the 2E Era, the RPG industry had embraced the idea that an interesting character concept required an interesting backstory - the idea that your PC might start out as some peasant schmuck was becoming anathema. Things such as character kits (remember those?) encouraged the shift in expectations and fed into the design assumptions for 3E.
In addition, the mechanical complexity of character generation for 3e meant that people were investing a lot of time in creating their PCs. If Pustule the Fighter (CHA 5!) wasn't made of sturdier stuff than a typical peasant, he might not even make it to second level - and that would mean that an hour or two had been wasted. So there was another pressure dictating that PCs should be above-average in at least some areas. Ironically, both Pathfinder and D&D have reduced the need for exceptional stats at 1st level by beefing up low-level characters slightly to improve their survivability.
To me, one of the most interesting relics of how far the game has drifted from it's sword & sorcery roots is a little-known table from one of the early Greyhawk products that spells out the expected distribution of the various classes amongst adventurers (fighter types 50%; thief types 24%; cleric types 15%; magic-user types 10%; and others 1%). This seems distribution reflects the assumptions of swords and sorcery fiction very well - where protagonists tend to be warriors or rogues and arcane spellcasters are quite rare. It doesn't reflect the assumptions of high fantasy, where the protagonists often possess some kind of arcane magic talent that gives them an edge against the Dark Lord. A world where barbarians and assassins are more common than wizards or clerics speaks to a very different set of assumptions than modern RPGs such as Pathfinder do.
These days GURPS and Runequest are better at enforcing the bell-curve than just about any game derived from D&D
The bell curve may or may not exist in the game world but since we are talking about PCs the things change, you are now looking at a probability of success.
Let's say one 1st level human fighter with CHA 10 puts one skill point in diplomacy, for a total of diplomacy 1.
And we have one 1st level dwarf cleric with CHA 5 that puts one skill point in diplomacy, for a total of diplomacy 1.
They both have an equal chance of succeding at any task that requires diplomacy.
While, mechanically, you are correct, from a "development" standpoint each character took a different path to get there. The human fighter learns diplomacy from sitting around in a bar trying not to initiate a bar fight. One rank, no special bonus from his personality, he's just trying to be invisible and enjoy his beer.
The dwarven cleric gets it drilled in to his head every waking hour of every day he's training to be a cleric that it's important not to alienate people who worship his deity. The people in charge see a certain level of potential in him so they work with him to overcome his obvious lack of tact and fear of public speaking to make him... well, less of a detriment to the church.
In the end, they both have a simple +1 to their roll in Diplomacy situations, but that is purely mechanical. If you or your group cares about it, how you get there is half the fun.
Or you could just give him a truly outstanding mustache.
--JD
Hmmm... thinking about that further...
Strength has a direct roll option in the game: bursting bonds or breaking down a door is a straight strength-based roll.
Some other stats (I think) have direct correlation rolls. Which ones don't? As pointed out, any stat that has nothing but mechanical functions (skills, saves, etc.) tied to it can overcome it's shortcomings by proper application of more mechanics.
Do the stats even matter that much anymore except as the basis for other mechanics?
Ponders
--JD
|
|
Excellent post, Prime Evil.
Though, in that light, I think I would be much happier with 10 Cha characters built with a 40 point buy. That would make them special snowflakes while still giving them mediocre social skills.
I'm fairly confident that few players actually WANT to play the social reject. And yet many select such stats just to get a minor bonus that could easily be found in a magic item. It really ruins point buy for me, and I don't have a firm grasp as to why that is.
And JackDrake, I personally see Str and Dex and Cha as having the same value. If, for no other reason than they have the same cost. Maybe that's a solution as well. Offer fewer dump points in games where the stat genuinely has less value...
If you're playing a wizard with elite array, where will you put the 15? The 8?
Unless you're going for a concept of "the not-so-competent wizard," the 15 goes in int. Putting the 8 in anything but charisma has a mechanical effect on your character's survivability. Strength? You'll have a hard time carrying basic gear and swimming. Dex? You'll have -1 to your AC (pretty sucky for a no-armor character) and reflex saves to avoid falling in the water-filled trap where you'll have to swim. Con? You'll start with 5 hit points and -1 fort saves. Wisdom? -1 to will saves.
I've seen quite a few 8 Str wizards. Staying at 26 lbs or less (light load for 8 Str) is actually not that difficult: light crossbow (4 lbs), 20 bolts (2 lbs), dagger (1 lb), backpack (2 lbs), scroll case (1/2 lb), spell component pouch (2 lbs), spellbook (3 lbs), traveler's outfit (5 lbs); total weight = 4 + 2 + 1 + 2 + 0.5 + 2 + 3 + 5 = 19.5 lbs, which leaves another 6.5 lbs for other items. Cantrips can replace things like flint and steel or lanterns/torches, so they aren't "must have" equipment; prepare detect magic, light, and either acid splash or ray of frost and have flint and steel handy until 2nd level (when you can prepare spark). Eventually (probably around 5th level, when the wizard starts crafting wands), the crossbow is ditched, freeing up another 6 lbs.
The difference between a +0 and a -1 on Climb and Swim checks (probably untrained, anyway) is hardly significant unless taking 10 vs. a DC 10 (at which point the aid another action comes in).
Granted, you'll be even worse at melee combat, but you're a wizard. You probably want to stay out of melee combat anyway.
The fighter is a sort of opposite to the wizard. He'll want high physical stats, but an 8 int will leave him with one skill point. He'll want a 13 to qualify for certain feats, and to be able to both climb AND swim well. An 8 wis? That dreaded low will save. An 8 cha? Well, he's just not all that charming. Probably smells like a dead monster. He killed it because he was strong, not because he could persuade it.
Depending on the fighter, the 8 may go in Dex, especially if the fighter is extremely melee focused. Since a fighter can wear the best armor and use a shield, as well as having high hit points, they have a bit more range to play with when it comes to AC (a 1st level 8 Dex fighter with scale mail and a heavy shield still has an AC of 16). With a 12 or 13 Cha and Weapon Focus/Dazzling Display to demoralize opponents within 30 ft (especially since Intimidate is a class skill), the fighter can impose a -2 on attack rolls (which effectively adds +2 to AC).
The game rewards high ability scores where you use them most. There's certainly a lot of flexibility for various builds, but the least relevant stat for most character types is cha, and it has been since OD&D. If one character in your party has a decent cha, you don't need it at all. They can be the "face." The wizard will be the "brains" and the fighter will be the "muscle."
The other part of this is that racial bonuses can raise an 8 to a 10, just as much as a racial penalty can lower an 8 to a 6. If you're an elf, for example, and Int isn't an important ability score (say an elf ranger), an 8 in Int gets raised to 10; since you have 6 Skill Ranks, Int is less of an issue than Cha (for Wild Empathy). Paizo's iconic elf rogue (pre-Pathfinder RPG) had an 8 Int.
Granted, if social encounters are greatly outnumbered by combat encounters in a particular campaign, then Cha can be considered "the least relevant stat." In campaigns that have a mix of encounter types, however, Cha becomes much more relevant.
All valid points. A -1 to some stats is negligible. I've seen plenty of Str 8 (or lower) wizards, too. It does depend on the game; a court intrigue theme is different from a dungeon crawl, and you should build accordingly.
Just as high strength characters compensate for the ones who should avoid melee, high charisma characters can do the negotiating for the less charming ones. In any party, someone should be the "face," because you'll need it someday. Ideally, it's a class that benefits greatly from a high charisma score anyway, like a bard, sorcerer or paladin, so you're covered. One of you is charming, and can even get some class skill points with it, so the others don't have to be.
The party of dwarves with cha. 5 won't get invited to the best parties, but they'll survive their careers better than they would with a 9 con. Unless, of course, there's lots of court intrigue.
The early fantasy is all about you being your equipment. There's nothing remotely special about you, its all about whatever it is that you're wearing. It makes every hero a generic cutout doll devoid of any special abilities besides the clothes someone slaps on him. King Aurthur could be ANYONE... he just happens to be holding excalibur. Random farm boy number 8 finds a magic sword and BOOM, its off to be a hero!
What i like about 3rd and pathfinder (and the briefly lived skills and powers) is that it lets you create characters that are not the sum total of their walking loot piles. The mechanical creation process gives me ideas for what kind of person I'm supposed to be playing. A dwarf with dodge and toughness is going to have a more laid back, outlive and outlast personality than one with power attack and cleave.
Where does it say that? You don't have to dump anything unless you play with something like the elite array wich includes an 8 otherwise it is a choice you make.
One of your dice will always be the lowest. It has to go SOMEWHERE
There are a lot of valid views expressed by above posters.
I do have to say I am enjoying Pathfinder as my gear feels...less needed than it did in 3.X to survive, especially for a melee martial character. A Barbarian with the World Serpant totem line and a non-magical adamantine sword he found in the cave of some dead king can cut through the DR of most things (besides Cold Iron, Magic and Silver).
And even then, DR is something a dedicated character can power through. (level 1 barbarian with power attack and just an 18 str that rages does 2d8+9. You can get through even dr 15 with that fairly reliably.)
So it's nice that gear is more of the assessory than the nessessity.
On the dump stat specifically...well, a player will either build a character the is Balanced or has a dump stat. You can have a 14, 16, 16, 16, 16, 18 Array and wherever you put that 14 you are dumping.
In a point buy unless you build even across the board (or close to) something gets dumped, again even if the low stat is the 12 while the rest are 13 and 14's.
So it's all relevative.
Sure, 10 is the 'expected average' of a the NPC folk, but would you be surprised if the Gm had the woodcutter NPC possess a 13 str and a 12 con?
It really comes down to the 'World expectations'. It's good to know what the DM sees as the 'baseline' stat on things just so the players can play off the right (or dramatically wrong) asumptions.
|
A Barbarian with the World Serpant totem line and a non-magical adamantine sword he found in the cave of some dead king can cut through the DR of most things (besides Cold Iron, Magic and Silver).
And even then, DR is something a dedicated character can power through. (level 1 barbarian with power attack and just an 18 str that rages does 2d8+9. You can get through even dr 15 with that fairly reliably.)
If he rages to STR:22 and PAs, his STR+PA bonus with a two-hander is +12.
Yeah, forgot to add the PA to the number there. But really it just goes to show that DR 15 is managable...and hopefully you aren't seeing much of DR 15 at level 1. >.<
|
|
The frame of reference I was taught (and how my group plays) is to use IQ as a reference to Intelligence scores.
A 70 IQ = a 7 intelligence. Anything less than 70 IQ is mentally retarded, however the normal range of IQ goes from 80 to 120. There is a difference between someone with an 80 and 120, but they all fall into the "normal" range.
Wizards are generally geniuses, so smart they are able to learn and cast spells.
Sorcerers are so charismatic they are able to call on arcane abilities with the sheer force of their will.
Clerics and Druids are so in touch with the word that they can gather power through their awareness of the world around them.
Warriors so strong they can hit through armor, so agile they can dodge blows, so healthy they can shrug off what would kill lesser...
And of course, adventurers are exceptional. That wizard with an 18 intelligence is probably as smart as the smartest person a commoner has ever met. The fighter as strong, the bard as charismatic, the cleric as wise, etc...
Now in my job I deal with IQ scores a lot. And I know from my field that in order to be excepted into most behavioral modification programs, you have to have at least a 70 IQ, because below that you probably won't be able to understand what they are trying to teach you. They aren't smart enough.
So do people with below 70 IQ exist in the world. Absolutely! Will some adventure? Sure! Will the fact that they are clinically mentally retarded at that point impact how they are perceived and things in the game.
Of course!
Similarly a score below 7 would be the equivalent of being mentally retarded in that skill set. And that would be as evident to those around them as it is evident that someone is mentally retarded if they have an IQ below 70.
And I assure you, it is evident.
I've found if you keep this as a framework for viewing stats, it all flows nicely. You will meet people who are retarded, but you will view them as people who are retarded.
If you make a character with a 6 intelligence in a game I am playing, he is going to be a lot closer to Lenny from "Of Mice and Men" than to King Arthur, no matter how you describe the fluff.
So it's all relevative.
Sure, 10 is the 'expected average' of a the NPC folk, but would you be surprised if the Gm had the woodcutter NPC possess a 13 str and a 12 con?
It really comes down to the 'World expectations'. It's good to know what the DM sees as the 'baseline' stat on things just so the players can play off the right (or dramatically wrong) asumptions.
Very true, very true. NPCs are built using 3 Point Buy (it notes this when describing ability scores in getting started, and the default arrays are 3 point buy). Most NPCs have 10s and 11s across the board, but there is plenty of room for variation.
For example, in my campaign many of the common hobgoblin warriors have a very dumpy Charisma and above average physical stats because most hobgoblin warriors encountered in my setting are grunts in their military-society, and their individuality and strength of personality is beaten out of them early in their military training. They are taught to follow orders and do what they are told.
So many of the hobgoblin warrior grunts that the party comes across have arrays such as Str 14, Dex 14, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 7. Still the standard 3 points for NPCs, but you can get a lot of variety out of them. Meanwhile a Hobgoblin commander will probably be PC-classed and gets 15 point buy as usual, which means he might have Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 12. When the vast majority of your troops have a 7 Charisma, a 12 Charisma makes it exceptionally easy to command your troops via Diplomacy (-3 vs +1 = a net 4 points difference in the DC).
Wizards are generally geniuses, so smart they are able to learn and cast spells.
I figured I'd point out that all you need to learn and cast spells as any class is a 10 in that score for cantrips, and 11 for 1st level spells, which means the average person can learn and cast spells.
Wizards are generally geniuses, so smart they are able to learn and cast spells.I figured I'd point out that all you need to learn and cast spells as any class is a 10 in that score for cantrips, and 11 for 1st level spells, which means the average person can learn and cast spells.
But only a genius can bend reality to the point of breaking. Or someone with a strong enough will.
The early fantasy is all about you being your equipment. There's nothing remotely special about you, its all about whatever it is that you're wearing. It makes every hero a generic cutout doll devoid of any special abilities besides the clothes someone slaps on him. King Aurthur could be ANYONE... he just happens to be holding excalibur. Random farm boy number 8 finds a magic sword and BOOM, its off to be a hero!
What i like about 3rd and pathfinder (and the briefly lived skills and powers) is that it lets you create characters that are not the sum total of their walking loot piles. The mechanical creation process gives me ideas for what kind of person I'm supposed to be playing. A dwarf with dodge and toughness is going to have a more laid back, outlive and outlast personality than one with power attack and cleave.
I played a second ed game like this and we found overly powerful swords. I pissed off one of the swords so it killed my character and this is not fun.
Back to the bell curve...
If you had a charisma of 5 or less you'd be in the lowest 5% of the population. If you had 20 people (say an average sized classroom) you'd probably have 1 of them.
How many people know that kid? Are they that hard to get along with?
How many gamers WERE that kid?
|
|
Wizards are generally geniuses, so smart they are able to learn and cast spells.I figured I'd point out that all you need to learn and cast spells as any class is a 10 in that score for cantrips, and 11 for 1st level spells, which means the average person can learn and cast spells.
But only up to 2nd level spells...
Back to the bell curve...
If you had a charisma of 5 or less you'd be in the lowest 5% of the population. If you had 20 people (say an average sized classroom) you'd probably have 1 of them.
How many people know that kid? Are they that hard to get along with?
How many gamers WERE that kid?
Now you're just opening old wounds and being mean. WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Back to the bell curve...
If you had a charisma of 5 or less you'd be in the lowest 5% of the population. If you had 20 people (say an average sized classroom) you'd probably have 1 of them.
How many people know that kid? Are they that hard to get along with?
How many gamers WERE that kid?
I wish the avearage class size was 20 still but it is not so maybe two if class sizes got increased to 36 or so.
Charisma is my dumpstat.
|
|
Back to the bell curve...
If you had a charisma of 5 or less you'd be in the lowest 5% of the population. If you had 20 people (say an average sized classroom) you'd probably have 1 of them.
How many people know that kid? Are they that hard to get along with?
How many gamers WERE that kid?
Actually more like this
http://allpsych.com/researchmethods/images/deviationIQ.gif
So about 2% are under 70, and only .05% fall into your 5 or less range.
But only up to 2nd level spells...Wizards are generally geniuses, so smart they are able to learn and cast spells.I figured I'd point out that all you need to learn and cast spells as any class is a 10 in that score for cantrips, and 11 for 1st level spells, which means the average person can learn and cast spells.
The average person given a level could cast cantrips and 1st level spells, which is enough to have anything your average person would want (prestidigitation, unseen servant, mount, etc). A 12 stat would be 2nd level spells, and even basic NPCs are assumed to have a 13. Enough to bend reality pretty fiercely (enough to mess with space/time with haste).
This is especially worth noting when you consider the general assumption of 3E D&D is that the vast majority of people are 1st-5th level NPC classed characters.
You really don't have to be that amazing before you can cast higher level spells. In Pathfinder, a wizard could have a 15 in his prime stat, cast fox's cunning and cast 9th level spells.
The frame of reference I was taught (and how my group plays) is to use IQ as a reference to Intelligence scores.
A 70 IQ = a 7 intelligence. Anything less than 70 IQ is mentally retarded, however the normal range of IQ goes from 80 to 120. There is a difference between someone with an 80 and 120, but they all fall into the "normal" range.
This is a hold-over from 2nd Ed when your stats *were* your character. We used to play that way as well. However, When 3rd Ed jumped to a stat-and-skill-based system, stats became secondary and your total for a skill was the true measure of your ability. It's a function of being able to overcome a limitation.
So, you don't RP a stat anymore. If you have a 15 diplomacy, how you got there is irrelevant. You're still going to succeed at most situations by taking 10 and throwing that 25 out there unless the DM has a house-rules "Circumstance Modifier" for how well you RP an encounter. Unless the RP is relevant to the story line, you roll your die or take your ten and you're off.
Int no more corresponds to your IQ than Con does your immune system. They are only abstracts in d20. In fact, Con has more of a correlation because it directly affects one of your saves.
--JD
I honestly don't see this. The WoT D20 book, which has the exact same blurb explaining Charisma as Pathfinder Core, has examples of creatures with certain scores on the chart. A "5" is likened to a monstrous, three eyed frog beast, and is barely above a rat.
The grolm isn't so much hideous as it is bad at relating to other living things. It doesn't have much personality, hutzpa, or ability to make other things agree with it. (mostly because it eats everything that isn't another grolm)
I don't have a PF Stat bell curve in front of me, but are you sure on 5%?
That's what it is on flat 3d6, which i think is the default method for non adventuring types if you don't do all 10s
I've met very few people I'd consider to have a 5 Cha,
It should be as man as you've met with a 15 cha.
and for the most part they have been repulsive in some way and I haven't been able to spend more than 10 minutes around them, or utterly unremarkable to the point that I ignore them on accident. I definitely wouldn't want to hang out with them 24/7 doing the same job.
What if they were really good at their jobs? Its a bunny ears lawyer phenomenon. The person is utterly bad at anything BUT their jobs, but they're so good at their jobs it makes up for it. What are you looking for in a party wizard, someone you like or someone who lets you live through the dungeon? Sure, for hiring a store clerk someone you get along with is more important than a 2% increase in profits but a 2% increase in LIVING? Sheeeldon! get over here.
|
|
But only up to 2nd level spells...Wizards are generally geniuses, so smart they are able to learn and cast spells.I figured I'd point out that all you need to learn and cast spells as any class is a 10 in that score for cantrips, and 11 for 1st level spells, which means the average person can learn and cast spells.The average person given a level could cast cantrips and 1st level spells, which is enough to have anything your average person would want (prestidigitation, unseen servant, mount, etc). A 12 stat would be 2nd level spells, and even basic NPCs are assumed to have a 13. Enough to bend reality pretty fiercely (enough to mess with space/time with haste).
This is especially worth noting when you consider the general assumption of 3E D&D is that the vast majority of people are 1st-5th level NPC classed characters.
You really don't have to be that amazing before you can cast higher level spells. In Pathfinder, a wizard could have a 15 in his prime stat, cast fox's cunning and cast 9th level spells.
So you are arguing that if I cast a spell that supernaturally enhances my intelligence and as a result I can then cast another spell of a higher level, while under the effects of the spell making me supernaturally smart, that is the same as being smart.
Got it...
Also, Eagles Splendor makes you more charismatic.