Getting really tired of min / maxing


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
With the number of rpgs out there, there's sure to be one that suits your tastes without the system mastery bit. If you want a similar amount of rules detail with about 90% less system mastery, there's 4e D&D. If you're willing to step away from D&D completely, there's free-form rpgs that avoid system mastery completely. And there are games in between.

A couple years ago I tried to get this group into Savage Worlds, which is actually my favorite game at this point. I ran a very short campaign of it. But they didn't like it and said they missed the "crunch" of Pathfinder, so back we went and someone else took over the GM chair. A couple months ago we were between campaigns so I told them I would start a SW campaign with some rules changes to address things they didn't like, when suddenly someone else just stepped in and announced that we were playing Pathfinder and he would run it. Folks seemed excited, so I took the hint. :(

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:


The strong kind? Seriously, not every freaking druid should be the wisest person in the world. It sounds like you're just jealous. Its especially amusing since you intentionally gimped yourself on points by buying a 14 charisma. Bad decisions are bad. Who'd a thunk it?

As to his character rendering yours obsolete. This is a roleplaying game, maybe his character is more powerful, but if you play smart, your character will never be obsolete.

I continue to find it really disturbing that, in role-playing games, where one might think that social interactions in the game should be something that matters-- the idea that charisma is the all-purpose dump stat and/or that spending some points to have a good charisma is "gimping yourself".

Admittedly, YMMV-- but IMO, dumping your charisma on every character but a charisma-based caster, is a clear sign of min/maxing taken to the munchkin point (or a sign that you're always in a tactical wargame style campaigns, not ones in which character interaction outside of combat has any meaning).

Liberty's Edge

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
ShadowcatX wrote:


The strong kind? Seriously, not every freaking druid should be the wisest person in the world. It sounds like you're just jealous. Its especially amusing since you intentionally gimped yourself on points by buying a 14 charisma. Bad decisions are bad. Who'd a thunk it?

As to his character rendering yours obsolete. This is a roleplaying game, maybe his character is more powerful, but if you play smart, your character will never be obsolete.

I continue to find it really disturbing that, in role-playing games, where one might think that social interactions in the game should be something that matters-- the idea that charisma is the all-purpose dump stat and/or that spending some points to have a good charisma is "gimping yourself".

Admittedly, YMMV-- but IMO, dumping your charisma on every character but a charisma-based caster, is a clear sign of min/maxing taken to the munchkin point (or a sign that you're always in a tactical wargame style campaigns, not ones in which character interaction outside of combat has any meaning).

Its better to dump charisma and have a character that is effective and enjoyable than to spend a large amount of a very limited resource on it and then have to post on the internet complaining about how your character is ineffective and how it isn't fair that other people's characters aren't as ineffective as yours, and then call them names for it.

As to your second paragraph, when you have to put "YMMV and IMO" before something because otherwise you think it might sound insulting, well, even with YMMV and IMO, it still sounds insulting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:

Its better to dump charisma and have a character that is effective and enjoyable than to spend a large amount of a very limited resource on it and then have to post on the internet complaining about how your character is ineffective and how it isn't fair that other people's characters aren't as ineffective as yours, and then call them names for it.

As to your second paragraph, when you have to put "YMMV and IMO" before something because otherwise you think it might sound insulting, well, even with YMMV and IMO, it still sounds insulting.

I never said my character was ineffective. I'm actually quite happy with her effectiveness. The issue was (at first) that someone else in our group had min/maxed to make a character that outshines mine in every way, effectively making it extraneous. Then I started to see other things going on and realized this wasn't an accident, but appears to be a conscious effort to sideline me as a player.

Yes, I complained, but I'm not saying I think it's unfair that "other people's" characters are more effective than mine. That's a Straw Man argument. I am talking about one specific person, one specific min/maxing situation. This player always min/maxes, and it's something I'm not crazy about, but what got me this time was how he seems to be aiming to make my character irrelevant.

Silver Crusade

ShadowcatX wrote:


Its better to dump charisma and have a character that is effective and enjoyable than to spend a large amount of a very limited resource on it and then have to post on the internet complaining about how your character is ineffective and how it isn't fair that other people's characters aren't as ineffective as yours, and then call them names for it.

As to your second paragraph, when you have to put "YMMV and IMO" before something because otherwise you think it might sound insulting, well, even with YMMV and IMO, it still sounds insulting.

If you want to take it that way, go ahead and feel insulted. Personally, I'm tryin' to be nice... but all I see with characters who have dumped charisma-- if that's what the player always does-- is hack'n'slash players and wargamers who don't really want any role-playing to get in the way of the killing and puzzle-solving (not that there's anything wrong with war-gaming in and of itself-- but if I want to play a war-game, I'll go hit the computer, or go hit the tabletop for some W40K). Observe that I don't waste time whining on the internet if I've gone and made an ineffective character-- I just fix the character, or retire it and play something different-- then again, I also choose to NOT play in games where charisma is considered a useless stat (except for spell bonuses), because it's a clear indicator that personality and background in characters is probably down-played as well.

On some character concepts-- yeah, having a low charisma fits (but it also says the concept involves someone who's an a**hole, a jerk, a non-entity, just 'rubs everyone the wrong way', 'creeps people out when they're around him'... y'know, all the things that having those social penalties represent). If every hero is just a dick who can't relate to people... I see it as a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
On some character concepts-- yeah, having a low charisma fits (but it also says the concept involves someone who's an a**hole, a jerk, a non-entity, just 'rubs everyone the wrong way', 'creeps people out when they're around him'... y'know, all the things that having those social penalties represent). If every hero is just a dick who can't relate to people... I see it as a problem.

Just because the martial classes find it useful, even worthwhile, to dump CHA, it doesn't mean that the character automatically is a dick or socialy stunted or even that the player is somehow cheating. That's YOUR prejudice and you can step away from it anytime you want.

It is quite possible for martial types to take a low CHA and make up for it via skills. The game accounts for it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:

With him completely copyig your character...you need to talk to him. Also my guess if these moves were all of the sudden he has probably seen this thread and is doing it because you have offended him. So he won't stop making your life hell till you talk to him.

Kinda paints that guy as a complete jerkass in that case, if he is indeed reading this thread.

knowing aside glance For shame.

We know a local That Guy who would steal character concepts wholesale from other players to use in the same game. I believe people that still game with him flat out stopped talking about their character plans around him after the most blatant examples of that behavior.

Personal opinion, don't give up your concepts because of another player's bad behavior. Talk to him and the entire group if need be, but don't give up your fun because of some griefer.

Silver Crusade

loaba wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
On some character concepts-- yeah, having a low charisma fits (but it also says the concept involves someone who's an a**hole, a jerk, a non-entity, just 'rubs everyone the wrong way', 'creeps people out when they're around him'... y'know, all the things that having those social penalties represent). If every hero is just a dick who can't relate to people... I see it as a problem.

Just because the martial classes find it useful, even worthwhile, to dump CHA, it doesn't mean the CHA is a dick or social stunted or even that the player is somehow cheating. That's YOUR prejudice and you can step away from it anytime you want.

It is quite possible for martial types to take a low CHA and make up for it via skills. The game accounts for it.

You can do that with any skills or feats, for many other areas as well-- and IMO yes, it's bogus min-maxing, if you basically make a character who is charisma-deficient, and then make up for it by using skill points. Basically, what this statement implies-- is that maybe Charisma should be house-ruled out of existence, because clearly the stat's not supposed to have any meaning at all in a lot of games out there. Charisma does seem to be one of the easiest stats to toss aside in 3E/3.5/PF, because after all the only thing it affects is matters of social interaction (unless you're playing a Cha-based caster, which is easy to avoid doing), while other stats affect more concrete things in game (like to hit/damage, AC, HPs, skill points themselves, and saving throws). Seems to me like leaving charisma as a stat in the game at all, but making it so easy to ignore and discard, is a design flaw.

Contrary to ShadowcatX's opinion, I used YMMV and IMO in the first post and in this one not to avoid insulting people who are sensitive to criticism of their style of play (because that's unavoidable sometimes even though I try to keep it from straying into personal attacks), but rather because while I do not like that style of play at all-- I do recognize that others may hold different opinions, and I'm (even here) not trying to tell you you can't play the game like that if you choose to do so-- although that way isn't a game I'm interested in playing.


The player who dumps his Wizard's STR is looked upon as a top-notch roleplayer, while the Fighter-player who dumps CHA is viewed as a rank cheater. That's a double-standard and it amazes me that more people don't see it.

Silver Crusade

loaba wrote:
The player who dumps his Wizard's STR is looked upon as a top-notch roleplayer, while the Fighter-player who dumps CHA is viewed as a rank cheater. That's a double-standard and it amazes me that more people don't see it.

loaba--

Actually I do see that, and I don't like the double-standard. The one reason why (in the groups I play in) I find the Wizard going with a lower strength a little bit more acceptable, is that the Wizard pays for it (especially at lower levels) in reduced carrying capacity and encumbrance categories, and of course, if you've dropped your strength on top of already having low BAB-- really sucks to be you if someone gets their hands on you in a grapple, or if for some reason you have to make a strength check or something. And most of the people I game with, if they play a wizard with, say, an 8 strength, they play the character as being physically weak, rather than ignoring it in the game (way too often I see people dumping charisma and then ignoring the effects that really should have on how your character will come across to other people he/she interacts with).

I still think if someone's always dumping strength on their wizards (and/or sorcerers), there's a problem issue there. I tend to look askance at anyone who's dumping a stat on pt builds (let alone dumping several stats), unless they have a solid character concept for which that stat-dump is appropriate and they're going to play out their character's weaknesses in that area in game in any and all appropriate situations where it should come into play.

BTW-- I suppose I should state, to avoid over-reaction and/or unfair points of judgement-- I don't see an objection, or not as much of an objection, to any character who is not a 'face' character, leaving their charisma (or any other stat) at the base line stat level (10, usually, unless you've got a racial mod)-- I tend to start seeing it as an issue, when someone is always dropping their charisma (or any other stat) below baseline in order to scrape up a few more points.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Loaba, any character regardless of class that dumps a attribute is a power gamer.

It all depends on the party. In my home game we don't allow a character to have less then a 10 stat. No muss no fuss. We don't like power gamers nor doe we tolerate them. With that said, I understand that not everyone like role playing for the same reasons and if they build a legal character within the game rules then you just have to let them have their fun. A min maxed character is very easy to deal with as a GM as one trick ponies don't actually do well in a well rounded game. Now, if there is nothing but combat, or the GM doesn't play up a min maxers minimums then it can seem like they dominate a game. If there is a min maxer who has say a 7 chr and the GM over looks all the trouble that a character with a chr of 7 would cause, then that is poor GMing and not fair to the players who have well rounded characters. The main problem is the DMs don't make a Min Maxer play up the weaknesses.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean Hanlin wrote:

Loaba, any character regardless of class that dumps a attribute is a power gamer.

It all depends on the party. In my home game we don't allow a character to have less then a 10 stat. No muss no fuss. We don't like power gamers nor doe we tolerate them. With that said, I understand that not everyone like role playing for the same reasons and if they build a legal character within the game rules then you just have to let them have their fun. A min maxed character is very easy to deal with as a GM as one trick ponies don't actually do well in a well rounded game. Now, if there is nothing but combat, or the GM doesn't play up a min maxers minimums then it can seem like they dominate a game. If there is a min maxer who has say a 7 chr and the GM over looks all the trouble that a character with a chr of 7 would cause, then that is poor GMing and not fair to the players who have well rounded characters. The main problem is the DMs don't make a Min Maxer play up the weaknesses.

Also, what Sean said (nice post).

In the PF games I'm playing in, the group understanding on character creation still allows for someone to drop (maybe) one stat down to 8-- so far, no-one's ever suggested dropping 2 stats (before racial mods, of course)-- but, it's tolerated by all currently in the group, because characters who have dropped a stat pay for it, significantly-- in the fact that that weakness is something they have to find ways to work around and/or is directly used against them in play.


You both are ignoring the fact that a -mod CHA IS the hindrance. No more, no less. That negative value can be made up for (to some extent, within certain situations) via skill selection. Why do you insist on punishing a player for working within the framework of the game?

For the record I have no problem with the low-STR Wizard. He can overcome the deficiency easily and I don't begrudge him at all. When you have arcane might, you don't need physical strength. Likewise, your Fighter doesn't need to invest CHA when he has more important stats to focus on.


Everything is give and take in this game. If you want to be a Face man, you're going to want a positive modifier in CHA. Those points have to come from somewhere and so you're going to end up with lesser stats that probably relate to your class mechanics.

That's your choice and I don't begrudge it or look down on you for it. Why can't you give me the same courtesy?

I don't care to mitigate my PC's strengths by diverting resources to areas that aren't of primary importance to the main function(s) of the class I've chosen to play. When you complain that your character doesn't stack up to mine in those terms, then I'm going to point out that you made certain choices that could be hurting you.

I fail to see why it's important to punish players, above and beyond what the game does, who try to play up the strengths of a given class, through careful stat selection.

Silver Crusade

loaba wrote:

You both are ignoring the fact that a -mod CHA IS the hindrance. No more, no less. That negative value can be made up for (to some extent, within certain situations) via skill selection. Why do you insist on punishing a player for working within the framework of the game?

For the record I have no problem with the low-STR Wizard. He can overcome the deficiency easily and I don't begrudge him at all. When you have arcane might, you don't need physical strength. Likewise, your Fighter doesn't need to invest CHA when he has more important stats to focus on.

For the record-- I've already explained my reasons for why I don't like it when players dump charisma (and other stats, for that matter). Twice or more times, by now. I do not agree with you and your assessment of this issue-- I've been fairly clear that I think it's min-maxing in a 'munchkin' way if you do this with any character, without the intention of having it be part of the character concept and the intention, shown in-game, of playing a character who is "charisma-impaired".

Frankly, your character also doesn't need a personality and you don't have to role-play in many games either. Why do you insist on excusing the idea that mechanical advantages are more important than character concepts which make sense and are consistent; and that the numbers and point-scraping should mean more than character personality?

I'm all for characters which have good concepts, good personalities created for them, and which are also effective in the game... I'm not for going for maximum effectiveness at all costs-- which appears to be the stance you advocate. If that's true-- then, bluntly speaking, you and I are interested in entirely different interpretations of the game.


You're assuming that a well-built character can't have a personality as well. That's an utter fallacy. You'll note that I haven't once disparaged someone for not carefully playing up their class strengths, yet you have by calling careful builders names like "munchkin" and "min/maxer". Your thinly veiled insults have not gone unnoticed.

You want to play in a game that punishes people for correctly assessing class strengths and weaknesses and then dare to build accordingly. That's cool, your game.

Silver Crusade

loaba wrote:

Everything is give and take in this game. If you want to be a Face man, you're going to want a positive modifier in CHA. Those points have to come from somewhere and so you're going to end up with lesser stats that probably relate to your class mechanics.

That's your choice and I don't begrudge it or look down on you for it. Why can't you give me the same courtesy?

Depends. Are you talking about leaving your charisma at 10? If yes, how is you missed the point where I said I didn't have anything critical to say about that? Or, are you talking about consistently dropping your charisma to 8, or worse yet, 7 (the lowest I recall Pt. buy lets you go), in order to get extra points? If yes-- then what have you missed about my rather blatant statements that I find that action rather munchkinish? (YMMV-- that's how I feel; I'm not telling you, or anyone else, that you have to agree with me-- something ShadowcatX evidently didn't understand when he chose to feel insulted by my earlier post-- that's what "YMMV" and "IMO" are doing there, to make it quite clear that I'm explicitly acknowledging that I'm discussing matters of opinion, not matters of fact-- now if someone wants to be offended or feel insulted that I hold a rather negative opinion of some of the choices they make, I suppose they can do that).

Should be pretty clear, why I'm "not extending you the courtesy" of saying I agree with the way you choose to play the game. However, I'm not saying "don't play that way", or saying "if that works for you, you suck!"-- I'm saying, "I don't play the game that way, and I'm not interested in games or players that operate under those understandings" (with the intention of at least implying if not saying it outright-- that if that's the way you want to play the game and it works for you, go for it-- just don't expect people who agree with my position on this issue to be happy within your group).

This is after all, 'Gamer Talk' (same things apply in 'General Discussion' though) where these discussions get held, and the end result of airing out all these opinions may be that one of us convinces the other that his/her ideas about how to play are a better way to run things, or that collectively the people discussing the issue decide that some compromise or consensus view between the original positions is better than where anyone's view started, or that some entirely new idea gets uncovered in the process of discussion and the consensus is that that's better than any of the starting points; or, that after discussing the issue-- the people involved agree to disagree, because we're each convinced that the position each of us started with is still the way that each of us wants to play the game, and the other person's way just isn't one that each of us would be happy with.

I think this is rapidly sliding to an "agree to disagree" point, although I'm willing to continue discussing this further if you'd like.

loaba wrote:


I don't care to mitigate my PC's strengths by diverting resources to areas that aren't of primary importance to the main function(s) of the class I've chosen to play. When you complain that your character doesn't stack up to mine in those terms, then I'm going to point out that you made certain choices that could be hurting you.

Barking up the wrong tree at least partially, here-- I'm not complaining about whether or not a character of mine stacks up to one of yours. I suppose the original poster was complaining about that situation when he started this thread-- I'm commenting on the more general trend (and problems I see in games) with min/maxing behavior in general. In game, btw, so long as the GM has an imagination too, I've generally found that imagination and ingenuity trump mechanics in terms of which characters are consistently more effective in game-play. Only when the game is reduced to a tactical board-game does it usually become a situation where best mechanical build rules over all else-- and even then, someone who's more skilled at tactics and/or luckier at dice may still beat someone who's got a better build, mechanically.

BTW-- yes, if you dropped charisma to a negative mod in the groups I game with-- you would most likely pay for it in all sorts of social interactions... gonna suck that there are going to be initial reaction rolls, quick impressions, and such things that are taken off of raw charisma, rather than getting to use your social skills for everything in interacting with NPCs....

loaba wrote:


I fail to see why it's important to punish players, above and beyond what the game does, who try to play up the strengths of a given class, through careful stat selection.

The biggest problem I'm seeing in your posts (maybe I'm just getting the wrong impression, maybe my impression is correct)-- is that I'm getting the impression that you're not much of a role-player at all, but rather someone who takes either the roll-player or tactical wargamer approach to play... because it seems that all you're concerned with in character creation is the mechanical advantage and how to best tweak the numbers, rather than what each of these stats and skills is supposed to represent, above and beyond simply the modifier to the die roll; and for that matter, you seem to have a major concern with the idea of whose character has the edge, mechanically, over another person's character. Your various comments seem to give that view away.

I could just as easily turn your statement around and ask "why do the rules punish people for creating a strong character concept, and then making the character (mechanically) to match that concept?" except I don't think that way, and I don't think following your concept has to mean that you're ineffective. However, I don't think you can necessarily be true to a good concept if you're trying to get the maximum tweak out of the numbers no matter what you have to bend and twist, fluff and concept-wise, to get there.

Silver Crusade

loaba wrote:

You're assuming that a well-built character can't have a personality as well. That's an utter fallacy. You'll note that I haven't once disparaged someone for not carefully playing up their class strengths, yet you have by calling careful builders names like "munchkin" and "min/maxer". Your thinly veiled insults have not gone unnoticed.

You want to play in a game that punishes people for correctly assessing class strengths and weaknesses and then dare to build accordingly. That's cool, your game.

loaba--

A well-built character can have a good personality. However, IMO a "well-built" character isn't one which is built to take maximum advantage of every last tweak of the numbers that the rules can provide to you-- it's one that is built faithfully to the personality and concept that a player has created, and is still highly effective, and not loaded down with choices that might "nerf" the character.

If I'm getting the wrong impression about what you mean, and you're not saying you should take advantage of every option you can get from the rules, whether it fits the concept or not, please explain it that way-- 'cause so far, that's not how you're coming across.

And regarding disparagement-- you have, pretty much, although it has been 'veiled', basically stated that anyone who doesn't go out of their way to tweak their characters to the maximum extent possible, just isn't very good at building effective characters. Which is every bit as insulting as anything I've implied about min-maxers who ignore questions of personality.


"Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
Depends. Are you talking about leaving your charisma at 10? If yes, how is you missed the point where I said I didn't have anything critical to say about that? Or, are you talking about consistently dropping your charisma to 8, or worse yet, 7 (the lowest I recall Pt. buy lets you go), in order to get extra points? If yes-- then what have you missed about my rather blatant statements that I find that action rather munchkinish?

Why are you so hung up on someone taking a negative stat modifier? It bothers you so much that you feel the need to call someone a name over it. Don’t you get that? You’re attempting to shame people who don’t play your way.

"Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
I'm not telling you, or anyone else, that you have to agree with me-- something ShadowcatX evidently didn't understand when he chose to feel insulted by my earlier post-- that's what "YMMV" and "IMO" are doing there, to make it quite clear that I'm explicitly acknowledging that I'm discussing matters of opinion, not matters of fact-- now if someone wants to be offended or feel insulted that I hold a rather negative opinion of some of the choices they make, I suppose they can do that).

Your negative opinion is coming through as though you’re saying “I’m right, you’re wrong.” And that is something I haven’t said to you.

"Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
Should be pretty clear, why I'm "not extending you the courtesy" of saying I agree with the way you choose to play the game.

Courtesy does not mean agreeing with me, rather it means dispense with the insults and talk to the points that I’m making.

"Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
However, I'm not saying "don't play that way", or saying "if that works for you, you suck!"

No, you’re just calling people who build characters differently then you do names and saying “your mileage may vary.” That’s patronizing and condescending.

"Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
The biggest problem I'm seeing in your posts (maybe I'm just getting the wrong impression, maybe my impression is correct)-- is that I'm getting the impression that you're not much of a role-player at all, but rather someone who takes either the roll-player or tactical wargamer approach to play

On what do you base these opinions? You’ve never sat down at the table with me. I have never stated one way or the other what my RP-style is. You have, on the other hand, stated that you abhor stat dumping and that you focus on RP.

"Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
because it seems that all you're concerned with in character creation is the mechanical advantage and how to best tweak the numbers, rather than what each of these stats and skills is supposed to represent, above and beyond simply the modifier to the die roll; and for that matter, you seem to have a major concern with the idea of whose character has the edge, mechanically, over another person's character.

Are we not talking about the OP and his problem with another player that revolved around character building? Or have I missed something? If you and I were playing at the same table and you had a problem with my character, because yours didn’t compare favorably from a mechanical POV, I’d suggest that it was probably due to decision that you had made.

Sorry for having the nerve to be frank and objective…

"Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
Your various comments seem to give that view away. I could just as easily turn your statement around and ask "why do the rules punish people for creating a strong character concept, and then making the character (mechanically) to match that concept?" except I don't think that way, and I don't think following your concept has to mean that you're ineffective.

See, here’s the difference; I play within the framework of the game and you don’t. You advocate going beyond the framework of the game, in terms of the CHA mechanic. You're advocating that other people play your way, because it's the "right" way or the "pure" way. When you use the derisive term "munchkin", that is what you're doing.

Silver Crusade

loaba--

Have fun jousting at "straw men". That seems to be what you're doing, instead of addressing my arguments.

You still haven't said jacks*** that denies the impression that you place mechanics 'uber alles' in building and playing characters. Which is the problem I have with players who love to stat-dump. I've stated my reasons, and you just don't think they're important at all, and you'd rather talk past me and be every bit as insulting and condescending in ignoring what I'm saying, as I'm being rather directly in pointing out that you're giving me the impression that the only thing that concerns you in character creation is the numbers-- something you haven't refuted, other than saying something to the effect of "well, I do role-play once the game starts".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:

loaba--

Have fun jousting at "straw men". That seems to be what you're doing, instead of addressing my arguments.

You still haven't said jacks*** that denies the impression that you place mechanics 'uber alles' in building and playing characters. Which is the problem {i]I[/i] have with stat-dumpers.

Why should I deny anything? How is my style of play, whatever it might be, relevant to the fact you play outside the rules of the game and call people names when they don't play your way?

Silver Crusade

loaba wrote:
Your negative opinion is coming through as though you’re saying “I’m right, you’re wrong.” And that is something I haven’t said to you.

And you don't think that you are coming across that way in every post you write? Especially since you keep talking around what I've been writing, instead of answering it?


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
loaba wrote:
Your negative opinion is coming through as though you’re saying “I’m right, you’re wrong.” And that is something I haven’t said to you.

And you don't think that you are coming across that way in every post you write? Especially since you keep talking around what I've been writing, instead of answering it?

My only problem with you is that you're trying to make this discussion about me. It's not about me, rather it's about character building.

I build the best character that I can with the resources that are given to me. I do so within the rules of the game. That clearly bothers you because you want the CHA mechanic to be more important than it is, because you, not me, are hung up on the numbers.

CHA, from one aspect, is global modifier to CHA-based skills. A negative CHA modifier can be overcome with skill ranks in X skill. That bothers you, but it doesn't bother me.


If you're a martial character and is CHA isn't important to your class, then it's a logical stat to ignore or dump or whatever you want to call it. Every single class has one attribute that is simply not important.


Statdumping does not mean one is not RP'ing. The rules allow for it to build up another part of the character.
In short a player can build a character to "take maximum advantage of every last tweak of the numbers that the rules can provide to you", and still fit the concept.
It is not an either/or situation.

If someone dumps charisma then playing the character as dismissive of others and/or having a short temper would fit the RP concept. The character being a jerk because he is so good at fighting or casting spells and so on could also work.

@Sean:It is easier to powergame to me without dumping stats. You are more than likely to be able to solve more than one problem, and have no weaknesses. If someone dumps 2 or more stats which is known as min-maxing in some circles they will be better in one area, but weaker in others, making it easier to attack a weakness. By the rules the 7 charisma does not cause issues so the only poor GM'ing is making stuff up to arbitrarily punish a character. Before you try to go after him in social situations all he has to do is put ranks into diplomacy, and/or take skill focus(diplomacy) to overcome the negative charisma score.

In the end there is no right or wrong way to do things. At best all any one person can say is they don't enjoy a particular style of playing.

Silver Crusade

loaba wrote:


Why should I deny anything? How is my style of play, whatever it might be, relevant to the fact you play outside the rules of the game and call people names when they don't play your way?

loaba--

At this point-- it's gotten into 'dead horse' territory. Your way does fit 'RAW', your assumption that because your way strictly fits the letter of the rules it must be right and should be okay at every table-- which is the attitude you're expressing-- however, is another species of saying "my way is the only right way to play the game" (something I've been reacting to on this thread much more than I should have). You make the assumption, over and over again, that how you create characters should be acceptable to everyone, that the assumptions involved are reasonable to everyone, and that no-one else (particularly not someone like me, who disagrees with you) should possibly find any rational reason to disagree. Recheck your own assumptions while you're checking mine, please, if you wish to discuss this at all further.

All the rules, including the infamous 'Rule 0' are subject to interpretation. Some of us also consider 'Rules as Intended' as very important, and do not see the intent of the rules as allowing every exploitation that you can justify by a literal interpretation of 'RAW'. Some of us also consider the 'spirit of the game' and story, character and such, important-- and make that part of the way we play the game, and part of the general assumptions and guidelines involved in both creating and playing characters. While you may role-play personality, background, etc., in the game-- it's clear by your own admission that you accept maximum exploitation of the RAW, whether it meets a groups' interpretation of intent or not.

To me, what you (and every other min/maxer of this sort) do is against the intent (as I interpret it) although not the letter of the rules. Does that make it clear enough for you what my reasoning is, since we apparently are not ever going to agree on this issue?


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
Your way does fit 'RAW', your assumption that because your way strictly fits the letter of the rules it must be right and should be okay at every table-- which is the attitude you're expressing-- however, is another species of saying "my way is the only right way to play the game"

I assume that playing within the framework of the game is the most common way to play. I have never said it's the right way to play. I do believe it's better than playing outside the rules of the game, but I'm not going to call anyone names if they choose to do that.

Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
You make the assumption, over and over again, that how you create characters should be acceptable to everyone, that the assumptions involved are reasonable to everyone, and that no-one else (particularly not someone like me, who disagrees with you) should possibly find any rational reason to disagree.

You played the munchkin card, which is as far from reasonable as it gets. And yes, I do believe it is reasonable to build the best character that you can build. I believe that many times that is accomplished by identifying which stats are important and which ones aren't.


If you can't make your argument without using the term Munchkin, then I submit any problem is squarely on your side of the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Loaba, Finn, may I suggest you two step away from this before someone goes too far?

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

Statdumping does not mean one is not RP'ing. The rules allow for it to build up another part of the character.

In short a player can build a character to "take maximum advantage of every last tweak of the numbers that the rules can provide to you", and still fit the concept.
It is not an either/or situation.

If someone dumps charisma then playing the character as dismissive of others and/or having a short temper would fit the RP concept. The character being a jerk because he is so good at fighting or casting spells and so on could also work.

Wraithstrike--

Generally I agree. So long as the player actually has a character concept, and the build fits the concept, and the player is actually going to play the character's weaknesses (as well as strengths) in game, I don't see a problem with it, for the most part. However, I wouldn't take your opening paragraph as an absolute-- there's more than a few combinations allowed by the RAW, that when you read what the abilities (whether involving feats, traits, and/or powers) are supposed to represent, RAI suggests that the combination should not be allowed.

Also, what I'm gathering from loaba's posts-- and objecting to-- is the idea that one should be allowed to, oh, dump charisma, then monkey around with skill points and play the character as if he/she is just as charismatic as anyone else and has no social issues stemming from it (IMO, dumping a stat for free points and then refusing to play it in game). And, if as you suggest, all Charisma is is a modifier to a few skills-- no raw charisma checks will ever come up or have an effect on how others see the character-- it's a pretty blatant weakness in the game design and a stat that probably shouldn't exist. I think Charisma does have a little more effect than that.

PF Core Rules wrote:


Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.

You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to:
• Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate,
Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
• Checks that represent attempts to influence others.

There's two parts to this:

1. IMO, the fluff isn't meaningless. If you have a low charisma-- your personality rubs people the wrong way, you're not very magnetic, and you're a poor leader. Since it does mention appearance, you might also be kind of ugly (most people, including me, tend not to push that part). Given what the fluff says the stat is supposed to represent-- no, I don't think this should be something that you can just overcome and ignore by spending skill points-- yes, the RAW lets you do that (for the most part); but (IMO) it's against the intent clearly expressed in the description of what charisma represents.
2. I tend to think that not all rolls to "influence others" are, or should be, skill checks (as opposed to sometimes running up against a situation where the initial impression is going to be a raw charisma check...)-- I don't think enough games apply that, or people might think a little more before just dumping their charisma.

wraithstrike wrote:


In the end there is no right or wrong way to do things. At best all any one person can say is they don't enjoy a particular style of playing.

You know, in spite of all my vehemence in argument on this thread-- I agree with you on this statement. However-- not only is there the point that I do not enjoy some styles of game-playing-- there is also the point that there are plenty of games and gaming groups I would not join, and others (playing a style much more to my liking) that I would love to join. I'm sure that applies to most everyone here (excepting those 'game sluts' who will join any table to get their "fix" regardless of style.... :P )


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:


Also, what I'm gathering from loaba's posts-- and objecting to-- is the idea that one should be allowed to, oh, dump charisma, then monkey around with skill points and play the character as if he/she is just as charismatic as anyone else and has no social issues stemming from it (IMO, dumping a stat for free points and then refusing to play it in game). And, if as you suggest, all Charisma is is a modifier to a few skills-- no raw charisma checks will ever come up or have an effect on how others see the character-- it's a pretty blatant weakness in the game design and a stat that probably shouldn't exist. I think Charisma does have a little more effect than that.

PF Core Rules wrote:


Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It

1. IMO, the fluff isn't meaningless. If you have a low charisma-- your personality rubs people the wrong way, you're not very magnetic, and you're a poor leader. Since it does mention appearance, you might also be kind of ugly (most people, including me, tend not to push that part). Given what the fluff says the stat is supposed to represent-- no, I don't think this should be something that you can just overcome and ignore by spending skill points-- yes, the RAW lets you do that (for the most part); but (IMO) it's against the intent clearly expressed in the description of what charisma represents.

2. I tend to think that not all rolls to "influence others" are, or should be, skill checks (as opposed to sometimes running up against a situation where the initial impression is going to be a raw charisma check...)-- I don't think enough games apply that, or people might think a little more before just dumping their charisma.

Fluff is mutable though, and not a rule. Even if one were to try to use the charisma fluff as a rule it could be said the charisma modifier is just a first impression before the person has a chance to speak.

I have never seen a GM have a player with low dex fall on is face because of fluff, or a player with low con get sick as an example.

Going back to charisma:

Quote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

These are normally decided by the player especially appearance. A creature can be butt ugly and have a high charisma. A person can can have a bad personality*, but still be able to get others to follow him.

*The person that is always grouchy, but people trust is an example.

How that fluff is presented is mostly a player decision.

The rules are

Quote:


Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes.

which you called out before, and have specific places in the book in which they are asked for.

As far as charisma checks they are called out in the rules when they apply. An example is when you are trying to bind an outsider, or when using the charm person spell to make someone do something they would not normally do, and so on.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:

Fluff is mutable though, and not a rule. Even if one were to try to use the charisma fluff as a rule it could be said the charisma modifier is just a first impression before the person has a chance to speak.

I have never seen a GM have a player with low dex fall on is face because of fluff, or a player with low con get sick as an example.

Fluff is mutable, but so are all the other rules in the book. If I haven't been clear enough everywhere else I've posted, as far as I'm concerned, RAI is more important than RAW, and both are subject to interpretation. I do not consider the "fluff" less important than the other rules, since (especially with powers, traits, feats, and other abilities) the fluff is usually what gives the in-character rationale for what the ability is, why the character has it or can learn it, and what the ability is supposed to do from the character's perspective in the first place. Also IMO, if the "fluff" says one thing, and the "crunch" does something completely different-- that conflict between "fluff" and "crunch" is a problem that needs to be resolved (and not by just throwing away the "fluff"-- though I don't think one should automatically throw away the "crunch" either). Since the fluff is in the core rule book, presumably for a reason, I don't think it's out of line to apply it, so long as one is consistent in those applications in-game.

Oh, and true... haven't seen someone get sick just because of a low Dex or low Con (admittedly in those circumstances usually a blown balance check or failed save is the final mechanism for falling on your face or getting sick)-- but actually some little descriptions and other stuff I've seen happen in games has been based on the fluff surrounding low dex or low con on a few characters.

And, while I'm in agreement that the player generally decides on his/her character's appearance-- the quote saying that "Charisma" includes appearance, is straight out of the Core Rulebook-- so, seems like we all house-rule that one, since it's just one aspect that the book mentions.

Silver Crusade

HawaiianWarrior wrote:

@ Ninten: I actually went with the two-handed weapon option, because I'm trying to make spear into my main weapon (because it fits the character concept). With Power Attack, Furious Focus, and using both hands I can bring my spear damage up to 1d8+8, which is nice. LOL about the dinosaur thing...

@ Paraxis: I have posted the ranger, and got good responses. I'm considering them.

@ Evil Lincoln: You're on to something. Though he and I get along fine, he can be pretty intense and, by his own admission, a bit whiny when things don't work out well. I'm paranoid that he's on these boards and might recognize himself, because it isn't my intention to make this about his personality. He's a smart, professional, otherwise solid guy. It's just hard to be at the table with him (even harder when I was the DM, but that's another thread).

@ Feral: "Gamers gunna game." That's hilarious, I love it! Actually, I'm passively looking for another game, but not finding much luck in my area. If I can ever convince my wife, I'd love to host. Our house if perfect for it. In that case, I'd happily get back in the DM chair and start a new group.

@ WRoy: That's true, one can be a good roleplayer and power gamer at the same time. It doesn't seem very common, though.

@ Cranewings: We already have an archer in the party. Actually, it's not really an archer but a cleric who has been maximized as an archer, oddly enough. So I'd be redundant there, too. :( Although I'm not sure what you mean by dropping damage from surprise. Is there something I'm missing? I always thought that was a rogue thing.

@ sveden: No, but I might be mad if someone's bard out-wizarded my wizard... To me that's about the distance between druid and ranger, though maybe I should adjust my perceptions?

@ Beebs: I had a couple of different threads where I asked questions about smart build choices (not crazy about that term "build" but whatever). The first one was about playing a...

Your build is rather unusual. I would even go so far as to say that by making certain choices you have made a substandard character. So if the other players are at or above standard power level, your are the weakest link in the group. That's not always a bad thing and I suspect the other players enjoy you characters presence, but if you run an AP you want your group as powerful as it can be to beat the challenges (up to a point I can stand the occasional CHA 8 but CHA 7 or below would deduct to much RP away from other stuff since it's actually more work to RP CHA 5 - but mostly for the GM).

The Druid seems to be very well made, maybe he did read Treantmonks guide - and if he did well done, his guides are very helpful in my opinion.

It is a fact that a well played divine caster like a cleric or a druid - properly build and played - can be very effective in combat, and certainly more effective than a suboptimal character.

Regarding his similar choices when it comes to weapons and animal companions:

A jungle cat is a good choice for a jungle adventure it didn't need to be the same one you have taken... but that's life. Some druids frequently change animal companions, for example they set free their wolf when they leave a forest region and take a polar bear when they to into icy areas. Nothing wrong with that really, and of course you can change you animal to.

Now while I fully expect that your druid will walk around as a Dire Tiger pretty much all the time from level 6 (and after level 4 Leopard or Dinosaur, Deinonychus), why is he using a spear?

List of Druid Proficiencys:

Weapon and Armor Proficiency Druids are proficient with the following weapons: club, dagger, dart, quarterstaff, scimitar, scythe, sickle, shortspear, sling, and spear. They are also proficient with all natural attacks (claw, bite, and so forth) of any form they assume with wild shape (see below).

Spear is the only decent two handed weapon he can get (that fits the adventure location), so don't worry he wont be using it for very much longer.

Now to some semi usefull adice for your build ( I am currently playing the AP and I am a bit ahead of you):

Due to the favored enemy mechanic a ranger wants to attack a lot, a two handed weapon isn't the best choice in my opinion. Given you stats I would suggest going into two weapon fighting. As your GM about using a spear as a double weapon.

Once you have access to in the spell lead blades is you best friend in the world until instand enemy comes arround. Get some pearls of power 1st your won't regret it.

And while you are at it pearl of power for your resident arcane caste should give you a mage armor every day.

Silver Crusade

loaba wrote:


I assume that playing within the framework of the game is the most common way to play. I have never said it's the right way to play. I do believe it's better than playing outside the rules of the game, but I'm not going to call anyone names if they choose to do that.

Everything I've argued for, as far as its effect on the game-- is limitations, based on RAI (and the GM's and player's reasonable interpretation of RAI), to how far anyone is allowed to push the boundaries with character-build options that may be technically legal under RAW, but seem to be build-maneuvers done purely to squeeze extra points out for other areas on the character sheet-- without adequate support from the character's concept and/or without the intention that the resulting flaws will actually have any effect in play (someone who has a strong concept that includes being severely flawed in some areas-- such as horrible personality-- wouldn't face objections from me based on dropping a stat in a way that reflects the flaws in the character as conceived by the player).

The RAW, which you so strenuously argue for, does not prohibit the GM from applying such limits on his/her game. It also does not take the GM or the player-group outside the "framework" of the game (in fact, it keeps them a little farther inside the framework). I have made an argument, throughout my participation on this thread, that is based on RAI, throughout this entire thread. I still have not seen from you an effort to answer the points I'm making, just a statement that because my interpretation limits the edges of some character build options that you like to use, I must be wrong and not playing by the rules.

Regarding the "right way to play" -- no, you don't say it in so many words-- but you certainly imply it, in every post. I'm going to ignore the other insults that I could easily point out again.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:
And, while I'm in agreement that the player generally decides on his/her character's appearance-- the quote saying that "Charisma" includes appearance, is straight out of the Core Rulebook--

Appearance is one part of CHA, but it is clearly not the whole bag. A swamp hag, ugly as sin in her natural form, has an extremely high CHA because her powers are based on it. How's that for "gaming" the system? Oh, does she get some kind of special monster-type pass?

Once upon a time, in older editions of the game, CHA was used (against) the player much the way you're advocating for now. Wraithstrike pretty much laid it all out there. The rules allow you to allocate skill points wherever you like, regardless of plus or minus stat modifiers. Seems to me that's where your problem is. You view that as some especially perverse form of cheating the system.

What you don't seem to realize is that 10 ranks in Diplomacy doesn't overcome the global aspect of a -2 CHA. The character could still suck at Handle Animals for example. And I am perfectly okay with that. It means that a simple animal, like or horse or dog, knows the character on base level. While the PC can fool all those people, "stupid" animals see right through him. That's just one to play it, there are many other rationalizations that the player can explore.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:


Fluff is mutable, but so are all the other rules in the book.

What I mean is that as the mechanics staying the same is what really matters. The fluff gives you one possible way to describe it. That is why I used the "initial impression" example above since it could work also, but it is not a rule.

Quote:


If I haven't been clear enough everywhere else I've posted, as far as I'm concerned, RAI is more important than RAW, and both are subject to interpretation. I do not consider the "fluff" less important than the other rules, since (especially with powers, traits, feats, and other abilities) the fluff is usually what gives the in-character rationale for what the ability is, why the character has it or can learn it, and what the ability is supposed to do from the character's perspective in the first place. Also IMO, if the "fluff" says one thing, and the "crunch" does something completely different-- that conflict between "fluff" and "crunch" is a problem that needs to be resolved (and not by just throwing away the "fluff"-- though I don't think one should automatically throw away the "crunch" either). Since the fluff is in the core rule book, presumably for a reason, I don't think it's out of line to apply it, so long as one is consistent in those applications in-game.

There are things where the fluff and mechanics don't match.

Cleave is described as one attack, but the mechanics call for more than one attack. Mobility says something along the lines of it making an attack easy to dodge, but it does not do that. It makes it easier to dodge. The two are not synonymous.
A really bad one is the horse lord archetype for the ranger. The fluff says you can choose any animal as a mount. The rules restrict you to very specific animals.

fluff wrote:

Horse Lord

Rangers of the plains use horses or other riding beasts to hunt their lands, forging a near-mystical relationship with their mounts. Horse lords are unparalleled mounted combatants, the envy of even the most dedicated cavalier. Though called “horse lords” as a generic term, these rangers are not restricted to horses for their animal companions—any creature the ranger can ride is included in these abilities. A horse lord has the following class features.

mechanics wrote:
Mounted Bond (Ex): At 4th level, the horse lord forms a bond with an animal he can use as a mount, which becomes his animal companion. A Medium ranger can select a camel or a horse. A small ranger can select a pony or wolf, but can also select a boar or dog if he is at least 7th level. This ability functions like the druid animal companion ability except that the ranger's effective druid level is equal to his ranger level – 3. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on Handle Animal and Ride checks with his animal companion mount. This ability replaces hunter's bond

As you can see any creature the ranger can ride is not a real option.

Quote:


Oh, and true... haven't seen someone get sick just because of a low Dex or low Con (admittedly in those circumstances usually a blown balance check or failed save is the final mechanism for falling on your face or getting sick)-- but actually some little descriptions and other stuff I've seen happen in games has been based on the fluff surrounding low dex or low con on a few characters.

By basing the explanation around a the low con you are making up changing fluff which is what I suggested for charisma. I agree charisma is often ignored, but the fluff for charisma and abilities is just artistic interpretation, and while it might a person to understand a rule it is not a rule.

Quote:
And, while I'm in agreement that the player generally decides on his/her character's appearance-- the quote saying that "Charisma" includes appearance, is straight out of the Core Rulebook-- so, seems like we all house-rule that one, since it's just one aspect that the book mentions.

I look at appearance and the others as things that a person with a high charisma could have. It does not mean they have to be good at all of them.

As an example a person with high dex might have poor balance, but still have good reflexes if they did not put ranks into acrobatics.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Finn Kveldulfr wrote:


Fluff is mutable, but so are all the other rules in the book.
What I mean is that as the mechanics staying the same is what really matters. The fluff gives you one possible way to describe it. That is why I used the "initial impression" example above since it could work also, but it is not a rule.

Basically, it appears to me that you're saying you can just do without the fluff, because it has no real meaning under this interpretation you've given. I'm going to say it again: my interpretation is that the "fluffy" stuff explains the intent behind the "crunchy" stuff, and therefore, it is part of the rules-- not extra padding in the book. I realize my interpretation of the rules does not match yours-- neither of us has the "one true path" for playing the game, because no "one true path" exists. :)

wraithstrike wrote:


There are things where the fluff and mechanics don't match.
Cleave is described as one attack, but the mechanics call for more than one attack. Mobility says something along the lines of it making an attack easy to dodge, but it does not do that. It makes it easier to dodge. The two are not synonymous.

At which point, IMO-- one decides whether the fluff is crap, and needs to be rewritten, or whether the mechanics ought to be changed to match the fluff, rather than tossing out the fluff. I don't think we're going to agree on this one-- as yes, if I think the 'fluffy' stuff does describe how something should be, and the crunchy stuff just doesn't do that-- I'm going to change the crunchy stuff, and consider it a valid way to interpret 'rules as intended'. And cleave does work as written-- from the character's point of view, it's a single swing that slices across one foe and on into the next enemy-- while two attack rolls-- presuming that you follow through on the same swing but still might miss the second target, is good mechanically (of course, if you miss the first target-- you're just off target entirely).

wraithstrike wrote:


A really bad one is the horse lord archetype for the ranger. The fluff says you can choose any animal as a mount. The rules restrict you to very specific animals.

Although I'm not inclined to defend that archetype overly much, since no-one I know has decided they want to play one... if push came to shove, and the player had a good idea for a character involving a mount that fits the 'fluff' (any animal the ranger can ride; although with the caveat that if it's a really unusual or "out-there" creature the ranger would need to explain how he/she found and started building the companion relationship with that animal) but which does not fit the mechanics you've quoted-- I'd change the mechanics to match the 'fluff', not throw away the fluff on a "crunch uber alles" policy. Still a legitimate way to interpret RAI and place it over RAW (although not the only legitimate way-- yes, you can go the other way, as you are arguing for-- and assume that the 'crunchy' bits are always correct).

wraithstrike wrote:


By basing the explanation around a the low con you are making up changing fluff which is what I suggested for charisma. I agree charisma is often ignored, but the fluff for charisma and abilities is just artistic interpretation, and while it might a person to understand a rule it is not a rule.

In the RAW, straight up constitution checks still come up for fatigue, questions of endurance, etc (while you can boost this roll with a feat, your high fort bonuses won't help). There just isn't much excuse for calling for a constitution roll vs disease when the game has instituted the 'fort' save, and RAW does appear to have erased any raw dex checks.

It's not so hard to figure that sometimes you're going to hit a raw charisma roll... because diplomacy takes time, and people have to care to listen to you in order for you to bluff them socially (doesn't bar things like feints and quick distractions though). This also reflects that there are occasions where raw strength checks may still come up in game also-- not everything is covered by skills and the three basic saving throws (charisma checks to influence people is something that is explicitly mentioned under charisma, separate from the skills it adds to). By RAW, there are no specific occasions where raw dex, int, and wis checks would be called for, in the paragraphs describing the abilities, anyway (though I can think of a few instances where GMs have called for straight up int or wis checks before).

Now, in your game, as with many other players' games, the fluff for charisma and abilities is just artistic interpretation... that is not necessarily true for all games.

wraithstrike wrote:


I look at appearance and the others as things that a person with a high charisma could have. It does not mean they have to be good at all of them.

Now, on this final point I agree with you. No reservations needed.

Silver Crusade

loaba--

You're still propping up made up straw men that only vaguely resemble the arguments I've raised in my posts. Nice try... but it'd be better if you actually answered the arguments I'm making, instead of talking around them. Also, you're still basically saying you're right, I'm wrong, and you have the only correct way to interpret/play the game in this discussion. Knock off the 'one true path' crap.

BTW-- got a RAW answer for you on Charisma, that I've stated a couple of times (to you, and in reply to Wraithstrike): *Charisma checks to influence people. Mentioned under charisma, separately from the line documenting skills that charisma helps with-- seems that GMs may not throw that at you often, but strictly by RAW it's legal and there are situations in which you should get hit with it, if you have a low Cha.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Charisma determines 'appearance'. It does not say Charisma determines 'beauty'.


Finn Kveldulfr wrote:


Basically, it appears to me that you're saying you can just do without the fluff, because it has no real meaning under this interpretation you've given. I'm going to say it again: my interpretation is that the "fluffy" stuff explains the intent behind the "crunchy" stuff, and therefore, it is part of the rules-- not extra padding in the book. I realize my interpretation of the rules does not match yours-- neither of us has the "one true path" for playing the game, because no "one true path" exists. :)

If by "real meaning" you mean "help explain writer intent sometimes then I think it has meaning. If you mean it is meant to be a part of the mechanics then it does not.

Quote:

At which point, IMO-- one decides whether the fluff is crap, and needs to be rewritten, or whether the mechanics ought to be changed to match the fluff, rather than tossing out the fluff.

That is why I say fluff is mutable. The mechanics are the intended in game effect. The fluff tries to give you a visualization of it. Sometimes the visualization is not written too well.

The reason I picked on cleave is because of the mirror image spell, and the long thread that caused. The fluff of cleave potentially meant you could cleave the images. The mechanics did not.

Quote:
It's not so hard to figure that sometimes you're going to hit a raw charisma roll... because diplomacy takes time, and people have to care to listen to you in order for you to bluff them socially

I am not saying it is not reasonable, but the game does not require that. If they can hear you then by the rules the dice roll is all that is needed, along with the intent of your words.

Quote:
BTW-- got a RAW answer for you on Charisma, that I've stated a couple of times (to you, and in reply to Wraithstrike): *Charisma checks to influence people. Mentioned under charisma, separately from the line documenting skills that charisma helps with-- seems that GMs may not throw that at you often, but strictly by RAW it's legal and there are situations in which you should get hit with it, if you have a low Cha.

Charisma checks do influence people which I said before, in certain situations.

Charm Person wrote:
You can try to give the subject orders, but you must win an opposed Charisma check to convince it to do anything it wouldn't ordinarily do.

You are trying to influence that person to act outside of their nature.

Calling for the charisma check in any other situation other than when the book calls for one is not hinted at. I am not saying it is wrong to play that way, but there is no precedent for when to use a charisma outside of specific situations.
Would you call for a charisma check before every diplomacy check or just 25% of them? There is no real quantifiable answer because the book does not say a charisma check is needed before one can use a social skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HawaiianWarrior wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
With the number of rpgs out there, there's sure to be one that suits your tastes without the system mastery bit. If you want a similar amount of rules detail with about 90% less system mastery, there's 4e D&D. If you're willing to step away from D&D completely, there's free-form rpgs that avoid system mastery completely. And there are games in between.
A couple years ago I tried to get this group into Savage Worlds, which is actually my favorite game at this point. I ran a very short campaign of it. But they didn't like it and said they missed the "crunch" of Pathfinder, so back we went and someone else took over the GM chair. A couple months ago we were between campaigns so I told them I would start a SW campaign with some rules changes to address things they didn't like, when suddenly someone else just stepped in and announced that we were playing Pathfinder and he would run it. Folks seemed excited, so I took the hint. :(

I feel your pain, man. Keep the faith.

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Charisma determines 'appearance'. It does not say Charisma determines 'beauty'.

Oh man, this is gonna devolve into a Comeliness thread, isn't it?

And me with my six inch nose! :(


1 person marked this as a favorite.
loaba wrote:

You both are ignoring the fact that a -mod CHA IS the hindrance. No more, no less. That negative value can be made up for (to some extent, within certain situations) via skill selection. Why do you insist on punishing a player for working within the framework of the game?

For the record I have no problem with the low-STR Wizard. He can overcome the deficiency easily and I don't begrudge him at all. When you have arcane might, you don't need physical strength. Likewise, your Fighter doesn't need to invest CHA when he has more important stats to focus on.

I have a problem with a low strength wizard. These characters are suppose to be adventurers, who go spelunking, live outside, carry treasure, and help people. Someone with a strength of 7 has a light load of 23 pounds and can press 70 pounds over his head at maximum effort. This person cannot live outside and function. He can't be an adventurer if he is getting tired carrying a rabbit and the trap he caught it with at the same time. In most cases, the low strength wizard is a stupid character.

I suppose if you have some sort of back story, like you are an invalid, small child, or have only one arm, you can justify how this person made it to this point in an ancient society while only being able to lift 70 pounds, but I doubt it. For the most part, an adult would have a strength score well over 10 just pulling their own weight.

For that same token, these low Charisma fighters that wonder into hamlet after hamlet at level one, practically alone, armed to the teeth, with no class skills in Diplomacy and a dumped charisma should be shot at the gate. No ancient agrarian people would allow a heavily armed vagabond with a charisma of 7 to wonder into their community. He would be chopped up on the road by the farmers before he got to town.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You have some very bloodthirsty farmers in your world, friend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
You have some very bloodthirsty farmers in your world, friend.

Yup, and thanks to treating my players to a game run RAW, now they have muskets.

They live in a world of goblins and goblin-dogs and whatnot. They hunt, skin, and prepare their own meat. They are used to blood. They protect themselves because they can't count on other people doing it for them. They build their own communities fortifications and if some dirt bag first level fighter with a 7 charisma wonders into town with a truck load of weapons and a smart mouth, they are bound to feed him to the hogs. Most of these farmers have at least a level of warrior from serving in the army, being drafted, or living in a warrior culture.

You want to run your cattle across this guy's farm? Be my guest.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

You made me think more of this.


Mikaze wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

With him completely copyig your character...you need to talk to him. Also my guess if these moves were all of the sudden he has probably seen this thread and is doing it because you have offended him. So he won't stop making your life hell till you talk to him.

Kinda paints that guy as a complete jerkass in that case, if he is indeed reading this thread.

knowing aside glance For shame.

We know a local That Guy who would steal character concepts wholesale from other players to use in the same game. I believe people that still game with him flat out stopped talking about their character plans around him after the most blatant examples of that behavior.

Personal opinion, don't give up your concepts because of another player's bad behavior. Talk to him and the entire group if need be, but don't give up your fun because of some griefer.

While I don't condone what the guys is doing even if he is reading this thread which spurn to be a complete jackass. I don't think the OP was right to vent in a public forum. Venting is important...but should be done in private. Than you should talk to the person directly.

Also...so somebodys character is more effective than yours? Who cares. As long as the distance is that great...should you not just have fun RPing your character? I mean I don't tend to like min/maxers( actrualy more due the fact they tend to be useless in most games I play in or run) or powergamers etc. But there is not going to be a perfect balance between characters.

Also who cares if omebody is 'taking your niche'. I love it when somebody else is playing the same type of character as I do. It means we can actualy work together and use that elusive thing called teamwork.

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:


If by "real meaning" you mean "help explain writer intent sometimes then I think it has meaning. If you mean it is meant to be a part of the mechanics then it does not.

You and I have a fundamental difference in the way each of us approaches and interprets the rules. No, I'm not going to agree with you. No, I don't expect you to agree with me. But I do understand the interpretation you use.

wraithstrike wrote:


That is why I say fluff is mutable. The mechanics are the intended in game effect. The fluff tries to give you a visualization of it. Sometimes the visualization is not written too well.

See above. I disagree with you, almost entirely, about what the purpose of the "fluff" is-- and while I consider it mutable, I consider the mechanics equally mutable if it appears that the two don't agree and what the fluff appears to call for, is a better solution than following the mechanics as written. Sometimes the crunchy mechanics are the part that isn't written too well-- sometimes each of them (separately) is fine, they just conflict with each other.

I believe, as a matter of how to apply the rules, that the fluff explains the intent-- and that following the rules as intended is more important than precisely following the rules as written. This appears to be a fundamentally different way to approach and interpret the rules from the way you play the game.

If you accept the first premise, that the fluff explains the intent (which I do, but you don't), then it follows that deciding/interpreting what RAI is at your table, depends heavily on the fluff, not just the mechanics. If you consider that RAI is more important than RAW, and believe that when the two conflict, RAI takes precedence, the RAW gets house-ruled if necessary (which again, apparently RAI over RAW is a premise I explicitly follow, but which you appear to reject or determine in an entirely different fashion from my process for doing so-- a different way is expected since your argument states that the "fluff" isn't part of the rules at all)-- the rest follows from that.

The way I handle the game works for me, and seems to work for the people I game with. I don't expect it to work for everyone; just as your way of playing the game, does not work all that well for me.

Silver Crusade

(separate post, for discussion of issues that are in the RAW; since I think the RAI vs RAW argument is straying towards 'dead horse' territory)

wraithstrike wrote:


The reason I picked on cleave is because of the mirror image spell, and the long thread that caused. The fluff of cleave potentially meant you could cleave the images. The mechanics did not.

Hmmm... I don't see why you couldn't strike two images at a time with 'cleave'-- is there some particular reason why you can't hit two of them? Or (since I'm not familiar with that thread) was someone trying to argue that you can strike all of them in one swing with cleave, no matter how many there are?

wraithstrike wrote:


I am not saying it is not reasonable, but the game does not require that. If they can hear you then by the rules the dice roll is all that is needed, along with the intent of your words.

Although I don't demand strict RAW if the intent of the rules seems to be different, RAW doesn't fully support you on this. Diplomacy, by RAW, takes 1 minute of continuous character interaction (aka 10 rounds) to influence someone's attitude towards you.... if you don't have that kind of time before they just start swingin', you'll have to rely on basic charisma to get things started. Bluff, can help sell BS, but doesn't help alter someone's mood towards you. Intimidate's always quick-- so long as you don't mind the possible repercussions and negative feelings later.

wraithstrike wrote:


Calling for the charisma check in any other situation other than when the book calls for one is not hinted at. I am not saying it is wrong to play that way, but there is no precedent for when to use a charisma outside of specific situations.

I guess I'm gonna have to go through every PF book, to see where it is or is not 'hinted' at-- however, one need not have a specific precedent in the rules, to make a precedent for the table.

wraithstrike wrote:


Would you call for a charisma check before every diplomacy check or just 25% of them? There is no real quantifiable answer because the book does not say a charisma check is needed before one can use a social skill.

The book also says diplomacy to influence someone takes time. So there is no real 'quantifiable answer' but there isn't such a negative, "no it's never necessary" response either-- it's a judgement call for the GM. I'd call for it, in situations where you need to influence someone and it's a quick moment where there is no time for a full-on diplomacy effort-- and you don't want to go the intimidation route.

Also if I've decided that first impressions are going to establish the NPC's starting mood towards the PC (because I haven't given the NPC in question an attitude re: the PCs yet, and I haven't just made a judgement call on how that NPC feels at them today)-- that immediate first impression is likely going to be established by a raw charisma check; then changing where you started from, is going to be an application of diplomacy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

We actually run games (my husband and I both DM) and we use cha to determine starting attitudes as a matter of course. It seems only fitting and cuts down on the stat dumping without reason.

I'm of the opinion that every stat should be important somehow, just some less so than others, depending on the class. If you have a supremely low score, it should most definitely be a penalty to your character both in and out of combat. Some exceptions apply-like for rolled stats where someone just can't help it-but for the most case, it cautions players not to stat dump so much, and actually helps round out the characters quite well.

Yes, a 6 cha character is not going to be doing well in social situations because of the above rule, but it could be (as per player) because he is horribly scarred because of a raging house fire as a child, it could be a speech impediment, a lack of a mental editor, or maybe just terribly antisocial. There are a lot of reasons someone isn't socially appealing. If a player is willing to come up with a backstory to explain it and put in some effort, I will reward them and soften the blow.

If it's purely a mechanical stat dump...they're not just penalties numerically..at least not at our table.

That being said, I don't really mind stat dumps so much except when it's blatant abuse. I file that under the "offensive because it's so obvious/insult to my intelligence" category, along with bad liars and people who play "top this" contests.

----

On to the original poster:

If you can't talk to the guy, try and find out from others why he's targetting you. You never know, it could be a complete misunderstanding, and he's being a jerk because of some imaginary slight. (I *have* had this happen. In retrospect it was actually kind of funny.)

And worst comes to worst: ignore him. People who are targeting folks go absolutely bonkers if you ignore them. And noone can complain you're being a jerk/rude.

Enjoy your game, don't let someone else dictate your fun to you.


ShadowcatX wrote:
HawaiianWarrior wrote:
He attacks better, he has a higher combat stat (what kind of Druid has a 19 STR, but only a 14 WIS?), he has higher saves all around, he has as many hit points, he has a better weapon, his CMB/CMD are the same as mine, he is better at survival, better at knowledge nature, has the same AC, and still manages to cast spells all over the place. The only thing I can do that he can't is stealth. That's it.

The strong kind? Seriously, not every freaking druid should be the wisest person in the world. It sounds like you're just jealous. Its especially amusing since you intentionally gimped yourself on points by buying a 14 charisma. Bad decisions are bad. Who'd a thunk it?

As to his character rendering yours obsolete. This is a roleplaying game, maybe his character is more powerful, but if you play smart, your character will never be obsolete.

Good point about smart play preventing the obsolescence... but every freaking druid ought to be at least capable of casting their higher-level spells. In my humble opinion... otherwise they're just a ranger with a better animal companion and worse BAB.

51 to 100 of 130 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Getting really tired of min / maxing All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.