Well yes and no Jiggy.
Let's take a look at both of them for a moment.
Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. Wisdom is the most important ability for clerics and druids, and it is also important for monks and rangers. If you want your character to have acute senses, put a high score in Wisdom. Every creature has a Wisdom score. A character with a Wisdom score of 0 is incapable of rational thought and is unconscious.
You apply your character's Wisdom modifier to:
Will saving throws (for negating the effects of charm person and other spells).
Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive, and Survival checks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It depends on what they are trying to accomplish. So if it's a spell that affects the WILL, that's definitely WIS. If you are trying to INFLUENCE someone you use your CHA mod and theirs. It's a shift in attitude on the spectrum of Hostile to Helpful. This doesn't mean that they will DO ANYTHING you want if they have a low CHA modifier as far as I understand it. They are just more or less likely to help you with what you'd like them to do as far as social interactions go. This is probably more along the lines of getting information or bargaining.
The other end of the spectrum is that you can dominate someone with a spell if they have a low WIS modifier and can't roll to save verses it (i.e. Dominate Person).
What CommandoDude wrote was that they are susceptible to being "told what to do" this isn't for influence, this is more like dominating or charming them, both of which deal with WIS and WILL saving throws to negate.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It depends on what they are trying to accomplish. So if it's a spell that affects the WILL, that's definitely WIS. If you are trying to INFLUENCE someone you use your CHA mod and theirs. It's a shift in attitude on the spectrum of Hostile to Helpful. This doesn't mean that they will DO ANYTHING you want if they have a low CHA modifier as far as I understand it. They are just more or less likely to help you with what you'd like them to do as far as social interactions go. This is probably more along the lines of getting information or bargaining.
The other end of the spectrum is that you can dominate someone with a spell if they have a low WIS modifier and can't roll to save verses it (i.e. Dominate Person).
What CommandoDude wrote was that they are susceptible to being "told what to do" this isn't for influence, this is more like dominating or charming them, both of which deal with WIS and WILL saving throws to negate.
Since there was no mention of magic, I presumed telling someone what to do fell under making requests according to the rules for Diplomacy. When magic is not involved, making a request of someone uses a Diplomacy check with a base DC corresponding to their current attitude (and that DC is influenced by their CHA mod), with DC mods based on the request.
Requesting "lengthy or complicated aid" from an indifferent target will be a Diplomacy check, against a DC of 20 plus the target's CHA mod. So 18 for the 7 CHA guy, or 23 for the 16 CHA guy.
Once spells are involved it's a whole different ball o' wax. :)
I was taking the statement carte blanc "told what to do," which to me would definitely have to be a spell to be told what to do. Whereas swaying someone's opinion or helpfulness as shown on the diplomacy table from hostile to helpful is a Cha-based modifier.
The other thing we have to take into consideration is that another Cha-based skill check is Intimidate, but that is against the opponents WILL save and uses their WIS modifier. "This will make the target give you the information you desire, take actions that do not endanger it, or otherwise offer limited assistance. After the Intimidate expires, the target treats you as unfriendly and may report you to local authorities..."
So that's why I said "yes and no" to you, I feel that it depends entirely on what someone is trying to accomplish. A low Cha at worst would make someone hostile towards you when attempting Diplomacy and a high Cha at best will make them friendly towards you. Neither will allow them to be "told what to do" based on this stat and it's modifier. Help or hinder only is what I usually rule at my table. Others may look at it differently and everyone is entitled to their own opinions on how they read this.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I was taking the statement carte blanc "told what to do," which to me would definitely have to be a spell to be told what to do. Whereas swaying someone's opinion or helpfulness as shown on the diplomacy table from hostile to helpful is a Cha-based modifier.
...You realize that Diplomacy explicitly has rules for individual requests and not just swaying their attitude/opinion/helpfulness, right? This isn't something I'm extrapolating (as you seem to be doing, by referencing other rules/mechanics). I'm talking about what's right there in black and white.
Request stipulates that it is asking as opposed to telling or rather commanding. The diplomacy rules also stipulate that that if the request goes against the creature's nature or values it auto fails. Therefore you aren't telling anyone to do anything with diplomacy. You can ask politely(Edit) or I guess rudely really depends on context I guess.
I am picking at the diction as well. But telling someone to do something has a very specific connotation that highly differs from convincing someone.
I think we are close to being on the same page Jiggy, but not quite. We seem to agree on most of the stuff so far.
I'm not extrapolating based on other rules/mechanics. I'm trying to prove the statement true or false based on the context in which it was given. My argument is that Diplomacy doesn't allow for someone to be "told what to do."
Let's look at context from original post we deviated on:
"Low Char also = more susceptible to being told what to do. Since normal people with average Char (8-10) already respond very timidly to authority (Miller's Test) someone with a 5-7 would probably have a tough time asserting themselves or interacting with their peers."
I feel this was worded improperly and thus we are splitting hairs on the meaning.
I think that the poster should have said something more along the lines of "more agreeable to being influenced by authority" and this would make it a diplomacy check. The other part is "timid" and that'd be more along the lines of Intimidation. Some people get these things mixed up.
The literal meaning from the site for Diplomacy: You can use this skill to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people. This skill is also used to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem.
The literal meaning from the site for Intimidate: You can use this skill to frighten an opponent or to get them to act in a way that benefits you. This skill includes verbal threats and displays of prowess.
As per the table(s) you referenced:
I'm reading it as Giving aid/advice, Revealing secrets, and Gathering Information. Correct? This is in addition to the swaying from Hostile to Friendly.
No I'm not missing the rule. If we take the context in which "told what to do" was originally spoken of, this is not Cha-based, nor is it based off Diplomacy and the table that you linked in black and white, it's a mixed bag of words that we are lawyering about.
I was giving a couple of examples which backed up my assertion that it's in fact Wisdom-based saves that being "told what to do" would make for it to be true in that context and RAW.
Hopefully I clarified what I meant here.
*Edited for more clarification*
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Request stipulates that it is asking as opposed to telling or rather commanding. The diplomacy rules also stipulate that that if the request goes against the creature's nature or values it auto fails. Therefore you aren't telling anyone to do anything with diplomacy. You can ask politely(Edit) or I guess rudely really depends on context I guess.
I am picking at the diction as well. But telling someone to do something has a very specific connotation that highly differs from convincing someone.
Note that we were talking in the context of an earlier post, who talked about how people react under authority or how well they can assert themselves. A "request" that Diplomacy would cover can easily be phrased as a "command" rather than a question when it's coming from someone in authority.
Also, I think you're nitpicking the original "telling people what to do". I think he just meant get people to go with what you say based on whether or not they're able to assert themselves when they don't want to do what you asked (like Fluttershy not being able to say "no", for all you Bronies out there).
EDIT: Ha! I guess there are multiple interpretations of the original comment. :D
Yeah I edited mine as well. Haha, no it's true we are reading too much into the original statement where it's mixed wording and we are both seeing different sides of it.
You'll note that I stated that I was picking at diction. I think I know what he meant. However what I think he meant is not what he said. Function as opposed to fluff. A command is intimidate. A request is diplomacy. At least from where I sit.
Edited out somewhat snarky comment. I can see that you honestly misunderstood the intent of my statement. I should learn patience.
You'll note that I stated that I was picking at diction. I think I know what he meant. However what I think he meant is not what he said. Function as opposed to fluff. A command is intimidate. A request is diplomacy. At least from where I sit.
Totally agree with you Jak. It's mincing words at this point and you are absolutely correct on your assessment.
You'll note that I stated that I was picking at diction. I think I know what he meant. However what I think he meant is not what he said. Function as opposed to fluff. A command is intimidate. A request is diplomacy. At least from where I sit.Totally agree with you Jak. It's mincing words at this point and you are absolutely correct on your assessment.
It's always seemed to me that the line dividing Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate is very fuzzy at best. personally I think Sense Motive should oppose all of them, but thats not RAW, is it?
As everyone else said like a page ago, your table is your table, play the way you enjoy.
Sorry StealthElite, you are just wrong in your assertions and Jiggy is correct in what he/she is saying about the stats. A 7 is not THAT bad of stat to have in CHA, a point that Hitdice just made as well. It is not a 3, it's a 7.
At the same time I say this, it's YOUR game and YOUR table, so you can do what you want with the stats and place whatever limitations on the point buys that you want. I think this might be you wanting to stop your table from min/maxing, which is totally up to you and well within your rights as a GM.
All I'm going to say is that you shouldn't come here looking for validation to your silly house-rule trying to argue your point where most of the peanut gallery (us forum posters) will tell you that you are wrong with the actual RAW of what a 7 means. You don't have to like our opinions or follow our advice, but when most of the posters are quoting from the actual books you how the game is currently set up giving you specifics on what the stats mean maybe take a hint. Swallow your pride and let your player have some fun at your table with a character who could be pretty interesting to play.
It's not a "silly" houserule. Look, he gave them a 25 pt buy, but just doesn;t want anything below 10 (or is it a 8?). He gave them enough points to build anything, there's no need to dump a stat at all.
Yes, he should have told them "No dumping stats, nothing below a 10 (or8)".
But folks, let us not get into "I am doing this for RPing reasons". I really, REALLy doubt that his player, if told "OK you get a 25 pt buy. You can have a stat as low as you want, but you don;t gain back any points for buying below a 10" if anyone would thus dump CHA.
He's dumping CHA to boost CON, not for RPing reasons.
And, there's been no consensus at all. Many of us have said that a 25 point buy is more than generous, that with that there's no need to dump any stat.
Yes, indeed, in that world, many heroes do have a 8. But they also have a 15 pt buy. Not all of them have a 8, as this DM has placed his campaign there, and he gave out a 25 pt buy. He could also give all the PC's straight 18's across the board. Perfectly Ok. Thus, there's no RAW which requires a 8.
The Op did come here and did ask for advice. But altho I agree a 7 isn't crippled beyond playability, it's also not nessesary with a 25 pt build.
The player can have fun by playing a stoic with a CHA of 10 just as well. Nothing requires him to dump a stat to have fun.
It is somewhat silly, giving 25 point buy and not allowing dumping, because for most classes in point buy it roughly equals 20 point buy with dumping (and if he wanted his players to be at 20 point buy power why not do so at the start). But as others have said it's his game and can do whatever he wants but he shouldn't accuse the player when he didn't tell the player that he gave 25 point buy but with stat dumping.
How should the player know that?
Playing a character with 7 Cha as having extreme difficulty getting along with people isn't good roleplaying. It's HORRID roleplaying. Here's why: a significant portion - less than half, but a lot - of the time, a seven Cha character is going to make a better impression than someone with average Cha. (I don't have the numbers with me, but theyll do better on raw Cha checks about 40% of the time iirc.) If you play the character - in total defiance of the game's mechanics - as seriously socially inept, you're going to constantly create situations where the seriously socially inept guy does better at social stuff than the average guy. That's dumb and immersion busting for me. I get that some players hate hate hate the fact that many characters can dump charisma to 7 with minimal impact on their ability to overcome standard game challenges, and so try to force additional drawbacks onto seven Cha, but they could try to pick ones that don't mess all over the rp. (The influence of legacy notions of what stat scores mean - notions that almost uniformly map horribly onto the game's actual mechanics - may also play a role.)
A seven Cha character might be loud or quiet, raucous or shy, or anything in between. The one trait that they should have is being slightly - but probably only barely perceptibly, as -2 is a barely perceptible penalty - less charismatic. If you play as super repulsive, you're underplaying your score and are going to constantly create stupid rp scenarios by doing better at Cha checks than other people.
Or the alternative option he has is that he can keep the 7 Cha but everyone(the npcs) will think he's being a douche even if he isn't trying. Everything he says comes off condescending, he has a permanent sneer like he thinks he's better than you, and the people he interacts with are all going to treat him as though that's what he's doing even if he tries to be charming.
His party of course is free to tolerate him or look under the surface and find he's actually quite nice he just comes off as a dick unintentionally but he'd better not hope to talk his way out of a problem with some random folks.
This +10
Playing a character with 7 Cha as having extreme difficulty getting along with people isn't good roleplaying. It's HORRID roleplaying. Here's why: a significant portion - less than half, but a lot - of the time, a seven Cha character is going to make a better impression than someone with average Cha. (I don't have the numbers with me, but theyll do better on raw Cha checks about 40% of the time iirc.) If you play the character - in total defiance of the game's mechanics - as seriously socially inept, you're going to constantly create situations where the seriously socially inept guy does better at social stuff than the average guy. That's dumb and immersion busting for me. I get that some players hate hate hate the fact that many characters can dump charisma to 7 with minimal impact on their ability to overcome standard game challenges, and so try to force additional drawbacks onto seven Cha, but they could try to pick ones that don't mess all over the rp. (The influence of legacy notions of what stat scores mean - notions that almost uniformly map horribly onto the game's actual mechanics - may also play a role.)
A seven Cha character might be loud or quiet, raucous or shy, or anything in between. The one trait that they should have is being slightly - but probably only barely perceptibly, as -2 is a barely perceptible penalty - less charismatic. If you play as super repulsive, you're underplaying your score and are going to constantly create stupid rp scenarios by doing better at Cha checks than other people.
This is a good point. If a player with a charisma of 16 wants to play his character as a jerk, and the guy with 7 charisma is automatically starting off with a hostile attitude from NPC's then he is already having more influence than guy with the 16.
Some people will try to counter that nobody like to not be liked. I disagree. I have met people who have bragged about how they have pissed other people off, with a big grin on their face the entire time.A more reasonable thing to do is to have the person be ignored, well not completely.
As an example the NPC might talk to everyone else before getting to them, even if they were there first.
I’ve found playing characters with glaring weaknesses can be a lot of fun if played right and done mostly for role-playing purposes. Most of the flavor comes from having the character overcome their weaknesses or fail hilariously at otherwise simple and easy tasks.
Having someone with charisma 7 who constantly tries to be the party face (complete with facial ticks, awkward pauses and stuttering) can be pretty good role-playing. The same character being “stoic” and not talking to anyone on the other hand just comes across as power gaming.
More than that, I’d be worried how the rest of the group takes it. Considering how this guy’s points are spread out, it’s pretty obvious that he boosted his Int, Con and Dex at the expense of everything else. With 25 point buy already being pretty generous, letting one player have the equivalent of 32 points for their "good" stats might cause problems, especially if they get resentful of him being more effective than them or want to jump on the min-max bandwagon as well.
I'm seriously curious about where people are getting their notions about what seven charisma means when they describe it as being seriously or even significantly impaired. It certainly can't be from the mechanics, which make it such that seven charisma is a barely perceptible difference from average, and according to which someone with seven charisma will routinely outperform someone with 10, and reasonably often outperform someone with 16. Do people just wish that stats meant more than they do, so they try to force RP restrictions not remotely justified by the rules onto different things, even where that creates glaring inconsistencies between fluff and crunch? That would surprise me, because most people who claim that seven int/cha represents a severe or even pretty significant handicap compared to an average person seem to be MORE into roleplaying than average. Making someone with seven charisma hugely socially impaired is like saying that Falchions are 35-foot cubes - and thus don't fit through standard doorways - because you don't like the Falchion is such a mechanically powerful option. It's utterly unjustified by the rules, the way mechanics work suggests that it's very, very wrong, and it creates fluff-crunch disparity that - at least for me - breaks immersion.
If you don't like the mechanical effects that emerge from people lowering stats below a certain threshhold, disallow it. Don't break immersion by forcing someone to play the character wildly differently than what the stat actually means.
I don't think 7 charisma is a handicap. I do think 7 in Charisma or any other stat on a 20+ point buy is cheese. Charisma just takes the cake because it wont effect a player as much.
I can respect a 7 Wis/Dex/Con because it screws up saves and even a 7 Str will ruin a characters melee damage potential and carrying capacity, but there's no real drawback to a 7 CHA or INT. You just sit and let everyone else handle the social interaction. That's cheese to me.
Again that's just my opinion. Some agree and some disagree, it's really not that big of a deal though.
Why is taking a character option that helps your character mechanically in a large way instead of a character option that helps your character mechanically in a much smaller way cheese? If a fighter takes Weapon Focus instead of Skill Focus (Linguistics), is that cheese?
I think too much is ado about a 7charisma. The real issue is that the character in question has 3 dumped stats. A single dump of 7 charisma doesnt bother me too much. 8str and 9wis...blah.
- Gauss
Hmm, Ok if a 7 isn't a handicap, why is that I NEVER see a PC with a 7 in Con? We have Elric and Doc Holiday, both well known archetypes, yet everyone dumps CHA, never Dex or CON. Odd that. I went over all of Treatmonks guides and other folks guides- and never is COn a dump stat. But if 7 isn't a handicap, then why not? It's just a little below average, right?
Taking a 7 or8 in CHA isn't cheesy unless the DM specifically gave you a larger point buy so that you wouldn't do the Min part of Min/Max. True, the DM forgot to communicate this clearly to his players, and that's fine. All he has to do is make it clear. Does anyone think that a 25 pt buy but no dump stats is somehow unfair?
But if he really think he needs to play a 7 in CHA so he is "stoic" then fine. After all, as pointed out here, a 15 pt buy is RAW. So, let him have 7's in as many stats as he wants. But he gets a 15 pt buy, not a 25 pt build. I'll bet he doesn't take that offer.
Or, try this, he gets the same 25 pt build as anyone else. Except that taking less that 10 doesn't get you back any points. Thus he can take a 7 and be stoic or whatever- but he doesn't gain back any points for doing so. I bet he doesn't take that offer, either.
Both choices let you play a PC with a "glaring weakness" for "RPing reasons". But he won;t take either. Or, if you folks are so hot on taking a 7 in a stat for Roleplaying reasons- then dump CON down to a 7. Should be playable eh?
Given that 3.5 Wizards got by on a d4 hit die, I think he could manage if his Con was lower; it wouldn't be easy, but it could be done. In fact, that would be much more fitting from a role playing perspective. He would be a fairly wimpy guy, one who didn't take the time to go out and exercise very much, but really smart. Hopefully smart enough to be able to avoid getting killed despite being more fragile than normal.
Of course, no player likes the idea of being easier to kill, so it will never happen.
I have played a cleric with an 8 con. Wasnt a great experience but it is doable. A 7 con would suck worse, but only until level 4 when I'd definitely improve it to an 8.
Unfortunately, charisma just doesnt give as much back as every other stat. That is just how D&D has been for years. Unless you are a charisma dependant class it has been the dump score ever since you got to choose where you placed your scores (back in AD&D 1st I think, perhaps 2nd). - Gauss
I’m sure they call them “parties”, but I imagine something more like a science-faire in a dark damp tower cellar with the borg-queen from Star-Trek First Contact serving drinks.
...
I'll be in my bunk.
|
The GM should give the other players who did not dump their stats a 32 point buy to equal it out with the guy who dumped everything. Let him suffer through with his 25 point dumped build and the others 32 point non dumped build, its all the same in the end, they get to play characters with relatively the same power level as the dumper and the dumper with his 7,8 and 9 will outperform the guys with the 16's.
@cranewings
And those are house rules that the players should know in advance.
@bigkilla
If you are going to play favorites why not tell him to not play at all and be done with it?
Does anyone think that a 25 pt buy but no dump stats is somehow unfair?
Unfair? no
Doesn't make sense? yesIf the DM wants to control the players' stats then he should give them pre-generated arrays and be done with it.
I agree Leo. If that is how a GM feels they should just come up with a stat array similar to what NPC's get.
What I am seeing reminds me of when I was in the army(basic training) and we had the line for the healthy food, and the line for the good(greasy) food. The drill sergeants never stopped you from going to the line with the good food, but you would pay for it. Yeah it stopped us from going to that line, but we never stopped wanting it.
In a social environment military tactics should not be used. Just saying "no" is a lot more honest.
edit:What I mean by the above sentence is that trial and error punishment is not good for a social gathering. Just put the restrictions in place, and it saves your time, and the players.
If the players don't like the idea they get to walk away before the game even begins which is a win-win for everyone. Cheese is subjective.
|
|
@bigkilla
If you are going to play favorites why not tell him to not play at all and be done with it?
Players like the one described by the OP never last long in my games so I would not have to ask him to not play. But I usually make it abundantly clear that dump stats and min/max cheese in not tolerated in my games.
Players like the one described by the OP never last long in my games so I would not have to ask him to not play. But I usually make it abundantly clear that dump stats and min/max cheese in not tolerated in my games.
@bigkilla
If you are going to play favorites why not tell him to not play at all and be done with it?
So you use point buy and tell people to make sub-optimal builds in spite of it? How delightful.
Then again, most of my character concepts just require insanely high stats, or otherwise some RP aspects just won't make sense. It's good that most DMs I have use rolling stats for that reason. The first time I played I was forced to dump DEX, and it came back to bite me in the backside, both conceptually and practically.
|
|
Players like the one described by the OP never last long in my games so I would not have to ask him to not play. But I usually make it abundantly clear that dump stats and min/max cheese in not tolerated in my games.
@bigkilla
If you are going to play favorites why not tell him to not play at all and be done with it?So you use point buy and tell people to make sub-optimal builds in spite of it? How delightful.
Then again, most of my character concepts just require insanely high stats, or otherwise some RP aspects just won't make sense. It's good that most DMs I have use rolling stats for that reason. The first time I played I was forced to dump DEX, and it came back to bite me in the backside, both conceptually and practically.
By no means are they suboptimal builds. They are just not superheroes.
Then why not make them play Commoners then?
The party is supposed to be exceptional, the next legends on Golarion, not a bunch of has-beens.
The homebrew game I am working on they will all start as Commoners or Experts, maybe a warrior. They will also have a 10 point buy for stats.
Since it's homebrew, I guess I don't have a say in it.
Doesn't stop me from feeling sorry for the players, though.
NPC classes were made, IMO, for NPCs. I'm not going to continue arguing over this because as much as you are in the right here, you are also in the wrong. This is an opinion question. I don't agree with you, neither do I have to agree with you. Vice-versa for you, you don't need to change play style just because I wouldn't play like you.
Anyway, to actually get on topic, a low Charisma can be played in many ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cheezy? It's pure Gouda.
That being said, some people like that flavour. This guy happend to be one of them.
In your position I would go back and apologise to the player and then make clear that you have a stat 'floor' of 10 minus racial, and thats why you handed out the big stat points to compensate.
As a player I'd be a bit annoyed for a second as I had made my build and now have to revise, however that annoyance is miniscule next to the disdain I have for GM's who whilst annoyed with my build subsequently go ahead and allow it and then spend every session railroading and shafting my character at every turn in passive aggressive payback.
I apreciate it more when someone has the balls to at least say 'Man, I am not so sure I can roll with your build, please change'.
|
Pathfinder actually rewards that extra drop in stat from 8 to 7 with an extra 2 points. If it was such a problem I'd sure they wouldn't have done this.
The game has no problem with low charismas. As Jiggy has pointed out, most NPC builds from page 453 of the Core Rules give 8 Cha to all Melee based NPC's heroic or otherwise, all ranger NPC's heroic or otherwise, skilled NPC's scrape a 9 or 10 depending upon whether they are basic or heroic. Only divine and arcan NPC's get anything above 10.
So your 7cha PC is basically as charismatic as most dwarves you will meet (as most dwarves in common fatasy are martially based and would have 6cha with their mod.)
What people have a problem with is boosting combat stats with those extra 4 points from Int or Cha as it is possible that dumping those stats will have no effect upon most games that are mostly combat orientated.
I found that generally those who have the biggest problem are those who do not want to dump stats. If you can't tollerate your character to have 7 int or cha, because it doesn't fit your idea of how your character should be, then generally you have a problem with those that can. You will then want to impose an additional penalty in addition to the -2 stat penalty.
In point buy its really hard to get a stat up to 18 without a racial mod. 17 points. Even with a 25 point build you only have 8 points left. I agree with those that have pointed out that you only dump stats to get the points, not for any real RP reason, but is that a bad thing?
Say I want to be Conan like. Almost inhumanly strong. I need at least a 17 stat to start and my +2 racial mod for being human to get a 19. Now I'm inhumanly strong, but with 20 points I only have 7 points left in my build... I can get cat like reflexes, 15, but nothing else, all 10s... So where do I get my points?
Balanced characters are perhaps what the game is about, but many people don't want to play them for whatever reason. As a gm I'm more for rewarding the balanced characters rather than penalising the min-maxed. Sooner or later something will target their weakness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So your 7cha PC is basically as charismatic as most dwarves you will meet (as most dwarves in common fatasy are martially based and would have 6cha with their mod.)
I have been trying to get this message across in other threads. I guess if enough people harp it on the point will get across.
@cranewings
And those are house rules that the players should know in advance.@bigkilla
If you are going to play favorites why not tell him to not play at all and be done with it?Does anyone think that a 25 pt buy but no dump stats is somehow unfair?
Unfair? no
Doesn't make sense? yes
If the DM wants to control the players' stats then he should give them pre-generated arrays and be done with it.
How does it not make sense? The DM already controls the player stats. Does anyone here seriously think that the DM is not the person who decides what the point buy is?
He gave a very generous 25 pt buy so that his players wouldn't dump stats. Yes, he should have been more clear. Or given options maybe- a 15 pt buy and dump all you want or a 25 pt buy and no dumping.
So your 7cha PC is basically as charismatic as most dwarves you will meet (as most dwarves in common fatasy are martially based and would have 6cha with their mod.)In point buy its really hard to get a stat up to 18 without a racial mod. 17 points. Even with a 25 point build you only have 8 points left. .
So your 7con PC is basically as healthy as most elves you will meet . Still, no one ever dumps Con.
All Core races have a racial Mod. ALL. So, it's not hard. It's impossible to NOT have a racial Mod. Even humans get a +2 to a stat of their choice.
So, for 25 pts, you can have a 18 in one stat (cost is 10 pts to buy a 16), then a 14 in three others, and a 10 in the last two. That's a fantastic build. To put a 17/19 in your prime stat (so that it goes to 20 at level 4), your build is 19,14,14,12,10,10. Which means at level 4 you have 20,14,14,12,10,10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@cranewings
And those are house rules that the players should know in advance.@bigkilla
If you are going to play favorites why not tell him to not play at all and be done with it?Does anyone think that a 25 pt buy but no dump stats is somehow unfair?
Unfair? no
Doesn't make sense? yes
If the DM wants to control the players' stats then he should give them pre-generated arrays and be done with it.How does it not make sense? The DM already controls the player stats. Does anyone here seriously think that the DM is not the person who decides what the point buy is?
He gave a very generous 25 pt buy so that his players wouldn't dump stats. Yes, he should have been more clear. Or given options maybe- a 15 pt buy and dump all you want or a 25 pt buy and no dumping.
There are different degrees of control, and if the DM wants to control the stats so much then he should have given them stat arrays of his own creation.
And no if he doesn't allow stat dumping then he didn't give them 25 point buy, he effectively* gave them 20 point buy.*for most builds for most classes.
There are different degrees of control, and if the DM wants to control the stats so much then he should have given them stat arrays of his own creation.
And no if he doesn't allow stat dumping then he didn't give them 25 point buy, he effectively* gave them 20 point buy.*for most builds for most classes.
Umm, no. I checked most of Treatmonks guides and he normally suggests a 8 in two stats , rarely a 7. So, that's a 21 pt buy even if you dump two stats, and most folks dump only one.
In any case, a 25 pt buy with "no dump stats" may be a 20 pt buy to some, but that's still mucho higher than the standard 15 pt buy. In order to get more than 25 pts by dumping starting from a 15, you have to have two 7's and a 9. And, altho a 7 in CHA will only hurt a few things, a 7 str will be difficult and a 9 wis will hurt also.
So, a 25pt buy with no dump stats is still generous.
I don't think anyone will claim that 19,14,14,9,7,7 is better than 19,14,14,12,10,10. For a wizard that's a net +2 to will saves & some critical skill checks and better carrying capacity.
