I will give you that but it seems that in most text given to harsk he does nothing more than bully his allies into doing things.
just seems that a party that liked him a little more would be more willing to say hey before we launch you from this, here is an air walk spell(something thier cleric has prepared) or fly which as pointed out the party wizard has prepared, he also doesnt prepare feather fall or have a scroll of FF on him.
you'd think that a cleric with 19+ wis and a wizard with 19+ int would remember what spells they have that would be useful to aid thier ally from falling to his potential death.
maybe if he was more likeable.
If a character could use point buy and drop a score to as low as 3 but recieved no points for going under 7 do you think they would do it for purely rp reasons?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is he bullying people unless he has a high charisma score? Unless he has the feat that uses strength for intimidate that is just fluff ignoring the rules.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
you'd think that a cleric with 19+ wis and a wizard with 19+ int would remember what spells they have that would be useful to aid thier ally from falling to his potential death.
maybe if he was more likeable.
You make it sound like CHA 6 = good reason to commit murder. Yeah, I'm sure you're not twisting or slanting your source material at all.
If a character could use point buy and drop a score to as low as 3 but recieved no points for going under 7 do you think they would do it for purely rp reasons?
Seen it happen. A local PFS player recalled a home game in which the GM added a fighter to the party (small group), but didn't want the players to pump him for info, so he had 3 INT. His name was "Duh". The player fell so in love with the character that he tried his best to recreate him for PFS, and was sad that he wasn't allowed to drop his INT any further than 7.
StealthElite wrote:
you'd think that a cleric with 19+ wis and a wizard with 19+ int would remember what spells they have that would be useful to aid thier ally from falling to his potential death.maybe if he was more likeable.
You make it sound like CHA 6 = good reason to commit murder. Yeah, I'm sure you're not twisting or slanting your source material at all.
you can find the Scenario in question in ultimate combat
and im not saying its an excuse for murder but that they probably knew that has some options for helping harsk out a little more before they launched him.
as for the pregen characters spell list here you go as of them being level 11(if youd like higher i can post those as well), these are from Legacy of Fire adventure path
Spells Prepared (CL 11th)
6th—blade barrier, healD
5th—flame strike (DC 19)D,
summon monster V (2), true seeing
4th—air walk, divine power,
freedom of movement, fire shieldD
3rd—daylight, dispel magic (2),
remove disease, searing lightD
2nd—aid, bull’s strength, cure mod.
woundsD, hold person (DC 16), resist
energy (2)
1st—command (DC 15), endure
elementsD (3), divine favor (2),
sanctuary (DC 15), shield of faith
0—detect magic (3), light (3)
D domain spell (healing, sun)
Spells Prepared (CL 11th)
6th—chain lightning (DC 22), greater
dispel magic
5th—cone of cold (DC 21; 2), teleport
4th—dimension door, ice storm (2),
stoneskin
3rd—dispel magic (2), displacement,
fly, fireball (DC 19)
2nd—bear’s endurance, invisibility,
scorching ray (2), web (DC 18; 2)
1st—charm person (DC 17), endure
elements, magic missile (3), shield
0—detect magic (2), light (2)
but if mental stats are just a penalty or bonus that hold no actual RP value, Couldnt the player just RP that his int was lower even though his int was 7 points higher than he wanted it to be or just opt to fail rolls?
I am sure the scenario is not taking mechanics into account. It was written more for entertainment than anything else. Otherwise dwarves all over Golarion would be in trouble.
I would also like to think that the swords they would be able to hurt the dragon wince the WBL would allow for something that can bypass DR. If this were a story from a novel I can see how they would not be able to defeat the dragon using weapons.
very very true also you made me laugh with this
How is he bullying people unless he has a high charisma score? Unless he has the feat that uses strength for intimidate that is just fluff ignoring the rules.
it made me smile.
i guess in the end there nothing really backing any stat mental stat score.
i guess i just compare it to how it was in 1st ed dnd where IQ was int stat times 10 and more less equate that to other mental stats.
a person with an wis of 7 would probably be as wise as a person with an IQ of 70 is smart.
Hold on... You mean to be telling me that Valeros, Seltyiel, Merisiel, Kyra, or Ezren are afraid of Harsk!? Whatever, I don't know if that's actually Paizo cannon...
That all changed twenty years ago, when his elder brother, a fine captain named Sigur, led a dwarven war band from Janderhoff against a small party of giants that had descended from the Mindspin Mountains to raid and pillage. Out of affection, Sigur offered his less-experienced sibling the chance to come and prove himself as Sigur's chief scout and second-in-command. Calm and peaceful by nature, Harsk turned him down, failing to see the honor his brother was doing him until several days after the company had departed. Traveling light and fast, Harsk caught up with his brother quickly—but not quickly enough. Misjudging the size and skill of the raiding party, Sigur led his band into an ambush, where it was slaughtered to the last dwarf.
With his brother's blood still fresh on his hands, Harsk went mad with rage. That night, he stalked through the giants' camp like a vengeful wraith, slaughtering giant after giant with his crossbow before melting back into the forest, only to reappear elsewhere and take another victim. When the last giant was left gurgling in the dust, Harsk took up his brother's axe and slipped off into the trees, vowing to forever be the voice of justice in the wild places, to keep balance and prevent the sacrifices of noble men like his brother.
Harsk, like many of his kind, is gruff and taciturn, but there ends most of his connection to dwarven society. Something of a loner, he prefers to spend his time outdoors, communing with nature, though he occasionally travels alongside others whose goals match his own. Uninterested in the beer and ale that so characterize dwarves in the minds of human society, Harsk instead drinks pot after pot of strong tea to keep his senses sharp. While he never lets his brother's axe out of his sight, he wields it only as a last resort, knowing that his true skills lie in the hunt and striking from darkness.
Anyway, even those with a charisma of 6 can be offered things out of affection and find people to travel with. I'm thinking the adjectives gruff and taciturn and the fact that he's a loner are examples of the lack of charisma here...
How is he bullying people unless he has a high charisma score? Unless he has the feat that uses strength for intimidate that is just fluff ignoring the rules.
Oh easy. Look say he had a CHA of 6, right? (and I have yet to see his actual stats or build, just a background). That's -2. But he maxes out ranks in it, takes a feat and a trait maybe, and viola, he's scary as heck.
Does anyone actually have a link to Harsks stats or build?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's in the back of various APs, most recently Kingmaker.
He has no Intimidate, and does indeed have Charisma 6.
Nothing about him being scary, though. Where's that quote from? I don't think I've seen it before and am skeptical as to it's accuracy.
Merisiel (in the Ask Merisiel thread) says he smells bad, which would help explain the low Charisma...but then she doesn't like Dwarves much, so that may be bias talking.
Try reading the last line of his backstory used in the APs
** spoiler omitted **
but as it says in his description they keep him around for his skills but he scares the crap out of all his allies.
We are talking about a character that his allies decided the best course of action was to shoot him out of a catapult at a dragon, even though ezren thier wizard keeps fly prepared.
sounds like a good way to get rid of a dragon and an off putting dwarf.
So Harsk is frightening. Does he have any ranks in intimidate? How does he get around his penalty to scare his allies?
Yeah, not buying this low charisma is stoic. A person in control of their emotions doesn't have the type of thing that will make people dislike you instantly and react negatively. If he is low charisma with no intimidate, he is a social muppet. If he has intimidate he can spook people to try and get his way, but is a one trick pony without bluff or diplomacy.
They want Harsk to be a badass, but he isn't socially competent enough to give off high cool.
** spoiler omitted **
but as it says in his description they keep him around for his skills but he scares the crap out of all his allies.
We are talking about a character that his allies decided the best course of action was to shoot him out of a catapult at a dragon, even though ezren thier wizard keeps fly prepared.
sounds like a good way to get rid of a dragon and an off putting dwarf.
So Harsk is frightening. Does he have any ranks in intimidate? How does he get around his penalty to scare his allies?
Yeah, not buying this low charisma is stoic. A person in control of their emotions doesn't have the type of thing that will make people dislike you instantly and react negatively. If he is low charisma with no intimidate, he is a social muppet. If he has intimidate he can spook people to try and get his way, but is a one trick pony without bluff or diplomacy.
They want Harsk to be a badass, but he isn't socially competent enough to give off high cool.
Regarding intimidate being the only way to scare people I think we are confusing projection of power with the knowledge that someone is dangeous. Projecting power to intimidate is a social skill. Scaring people because you are a killer is an anti-social fact. I would assign a massive competence bonus to intimidate based on this but that still doesn't mean it would translate into a projection of power.
Some types of people who are 'in control of their emotions' produce negative reactions in others. They are often be considered cold and aloof with no outward emotions for others to interact with. As a result people do not get to know them.
So one interpretation of all of this: A person (not necessarily Harsk) who is extremely good at fighting and killing, with no emotional ties to people unless they take a long time to get to know him and even then its problematic. They keep him around for whatever reasons they have (they see the good in him, or still have become friends...whatever) but that doesnt mean he doesnt scare them a bit. He will have a very hard time socializing with newer people who haven't gotten to know him.
Circumstance bonuses and penalties can account for the difference between longstanding friends and people who dont know the character.
For RL examples: I have known social misfits who have long standing friends but cannot get along with others. From time to time even the long standing friends have to take breaks from the social misfit. Ever interact with a person that stares through you as if you werent there? This could be an example.
- Gauss
|
|
Having a Cha of 7 means you persuade and influence the average person less than half the time. I see no reason why this has to mean "disgusting, repulsive troll". You just don't get noticed much, aren't intuitive, aren't a very good liar, and lack the ability to get what you want through social avenues.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So Harsk is frightening. Does he have any ranks in intimidate? How does he get around his penalty to scare his allies
It could be described as being the difference between scaring people and using that fear to get them to do what you want - only the latter would require ranks in Intimidate, the former can just be fluff description of how the low charisma manifests.
So when Harsk shouts "Stay where you are or I will cut off your legs!" to a foe, that foe is just as likely to think:
"Sod that, he's scary, I am out of here!" and flee, or
"Sod that, he's scary I need to kill him now!" and attack Harsk, than they are to think
"Gods yes, I will stay right where I am because I don't want to disobey someone so scary" and stay where they are as Harsk wanted
Basically, the GM can choose to roleplay his NPCs (though not all) as being afraid of Harsk to reflect how the player of Harsk describes the manifestation of Harsk's low charisma, but the GM is in no way restricted on how the NPCs may act because of that fear. If the player of Harsk puts ranks in Intimidate that could change however.
Mm, you can give circumstantial benefits, but hardy adventurers are not going to be scared of someone that didn't make at least one "I am fearsome" check. Without a natural 20, this character doesn't seem capable of making even one intimidate check.
Of course the levels and the actual fighting ability is a separate matter, it comes down to the old rogue versus fighter in intimidate. The frightening rogue will get higher and seem more frightening than they may actually be (they might be a social rogue versus a very tough and vicious fighter). It is a quirky part of the system.
Harsh however faces a real problem, that is quite a low charisma, and that char is near incapable of being impressive or even socially competent. So he might kills ogres by the dozen, but comes across as quite the ditz who doesn't understand how to respond to or influence people, because he is too busy being awkward.
Being able to kill someone and being able to manipulate someone so that you don't have to kill them, are mechanically and actually quite different things.
Funny times in dnd!
So Harsk is frightening. Does he have any ranks in intimidate? How does he get around his penalty to scare his alliesIt could be described as being the difference between scaring people and using that fear to get them to do what you want - only the latter would require ranks in Intimidate, the former can just be fluff description of how the low charisma manifests.
So when Harsk shouts "Stay where you are or I will cut off your legs!" to a foe, that foe is just as likely to think:
"Sod that, he's scary, I am out of here!" and flee, or
"Sod that, he's scary I need to kill him now!" and attack Harsk, than they are to think
"Gods yes, I will stay right where I am because I don't want to disobey someone so scary" and stay where they are as Harsk wantedBasically, the GM can choose to roleplay his NPCs (though not all) as being afraid of Harsk to reflect how the player of Harsk describes the manifestation of Harsk's low charisma, but the GM is in no way restricted on how the NPCs may act because of that fear. If the player of Harsk puts ranks in Intimidate that could change however.
Good point! He can shout as much as he want, he just can't get desired effects. I've seen this before in high combat capable/low social capable characters.
"You try to intimidate the waiter... you fail."
Seen it! (I was a pc)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
You can be scary, and also not use verbal threats and showboating to specifically get what you want. You can use Intimidate to frighten opponents, true, but this doesn't mean you also cannot be naturally fear-inducing. You just don't know how to use that to your advantage.
Edit: In other words, you can unnerve people without them being mechanically Shaken. They are just a bit more wary around you than normal.
A low charisma and no dip, bluff or intimidate or feats in those is a bad combination for being in a group. You can try to be a tough longer but here is the bad news:
1) you will never win an in party argument that comes down to a dice off (or just a disagreement) without force.
2) using force is dangerous, everyone may turn on you and you can't change their opinions.
3) your input is considered by the group as less important than the high charisma people, mechanically speaking if it comes down to any rolls. The high charisma folks easily determine the flow and what is to be discussed.
4) if it all goes bad, you will probably be on your own. An easy way to die in a dangerous area.
5) you have a difficulty in tricking any of your party members or hiding something from strong sense motive characters (where is thou bluff?)
Harsk is not cool. Harsk is not a stoic. He has real weaknesses.
I do have some social rolling in my games, influencing npcs and at times pcs, I want to know how good characters are at doing things.
I like putting a bit of social combat (Courtier verbally rages HRARRRGH!) into my games. It is only minor, but it can sometimes be very very important. I don't respect the courtiers of real life, but I know such people exist and how skilled they can be.
|
|
A low charisma and no dip, bluff or intimidate or feats in those is a bad combination for being in a group. You can try to be a tough longer but here is the bad news:
1) you will never win an in party argument that comes down to a dice off (or just a disagreement) without force.
2) using force is dangerous, everyone may turn on you and you can't change their opinions.
3) your input is considered by the group as less important than the high charisma people, mechanically speaking if it comes down to any rolls. The high charisma folks easily determine the flow and what is to be discussed.
4) if it all goes bad, you will probably be on your own. An easy way to die in a dangerous area.
5) you have a difficulty in tricking any of your party members or hiding something from strong sense motive characters (where is thou bluff?)Harsk is not cool. Harsk is not a stoic. He has real weaknesses.
I do have some social rolling in my games, influencing npcs and at times pcs, I want to know how good characters are at doing things.
I like putting a bit of social combat (Courtier verbally rages HRARRRGH!) into my games. It is only minor, but it can sometimes be very very important. I don't respect the courtiers of real life, but I know such people exist and how skilled they can be.
Those five points are indeed weaknesses in a campaign where intra-group social rolling even exists.
Ah, but even if there is no rolling, a person playing a low charisma character shouldn't be playing them as a high charisma character. That isn't accurate roleplaying.
Red mage, you have never had a player try to bluff another player or win an argument against another pc involving an npc or a crowd?
Hmm, maybe I am gaming with chaotics.
Being stoic has nothing to do with charisma. It is a state of mind where a person maintains self-control in order to overcome destructive emotions.
- Gauss
P.S. It could even be said that one reason a stoic person might be that way is in response to their inability to be social. Since they dont fit into the social world they either fight it, or accept it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, but even if there is no rolling, a person playing a low charisma character shouldn't be playing them as a high charisma character. That isn't accurate roleplaying.
Red mage, you have never had a player try to bluff another player or win an argument against another pc involving an npc or a crowd?
Hmm, maybe I am gaming with chaotics.
I'm not into roleplaying strictly according to stats. The mechanical effects of your ability scores already have impact, and I wouldn't want to limit someone's fun if they wanted to roleplay (in situations with no real mechanical effect) a 7 Int as a 9 Int. There is definitely a margin of acceptability and I think common sense tends to keep that in check. Playing a 7 Cha as an 18 Cha would raise more than a few eyebrows.
I have had players bluffing each other, trying to influence each other, trying to Charm each other, etc. It usually isn't fun in a heroic campaign, but your mileage may vary on that.
In an evil/heavily neutral campaign with lots of intra-party conflict? Bring it on.
I am not sure a low charisma person is actually in control of their emotions. If they were, and could influence others, they would have a higher charisma.
We've heard and run examples of low charisma chars doing the worst things, there is the question of what do they control as they blunder through?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being stoic has nothing to do with charisma. It is a state of mind where a person maintains self-control in order to overcome destructive emotions.
- Gauss
P.S. It could even be said that one reason a stoic person might be that way is in response to their inability to be social. Since they dont fit into the social world they either fight it, or accept it.
Being in control of your emotions and maintaining control under pressure are part of charisma.
Being in control of your emotions and maintaining control under pressure are part of charisma.
Do you have something rules-like to back that up, or are you just spewing your opinion as if it were fact?
Because from my understanding of things, performance under pressure has nothing at all to do with Charisma, and maintaining control of ones emotions I would view as falling more within the realm of Wisdom.
I have known plenty of Charismatic people who have no self control at all, emotional or otherwise, and they absolutely cave under pressure.
Being in control of your emotions and maintaining control under pressure are part of charisma.
Last time I checked, will saves used wisdom...
Control and use of emotions are not so divorced. A high charisma char has an inherent bonus to making friends and influencing people, being charming, out-right lying and forcing their way with strength of will, some well-chosen threatening words or a long look. Charisma is social control, from a character and spreading outwards. The self is controlled and directed so as to direct others, quite deliberately.
There is will saves and the strength of will to consider when one is on the defensive. Sense motive from wisdom counters bluff from charisma.
"are you just spewing your opinion as if it were fact?"
Moro, please remember the most important rule below.
"The most important rule: Don't be a jerk. We want our messageboards
to be a fun and friendly place."
I think stoic is more high wisdom. Also I don't think of character like rangers getting lots of practice in social situations when they are often outdoors as a child growing up in most of my backgrounds and would never develop social skills beyond even zero ranks of less than the baseline so the only real way to do that is lower charisma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.You can be scary, and also not use verbal threats and showboating to specifically get what you want. You can use Intimidate to frighten opponents, true, but this doesn't mean you also cannot be naturally fear-inducing. You just don't know how to use that to your advantage.
Edit: In other words, you can unnerve people without them being mechanically Shaken. They are just a bit more wary around you than normal.
Fluff wise it works, but mechanically it fails. Being wary is not the same as making his companions afraid which is what was initially proposed.
3.5 Loyalist, what you describe in your last post is how people influence others and not how they control themselves. Many RL charismatic people have a high wisdoms also. However, I have known people with piss poor charisma and a bad (inborn) temper. Those that learned to control their emotions did not suddenly become social dynamos although it did make them a bit less un-pleasant to be around. - Gauss
A low charisma and no dip, bluff or intimidate or feats in those is a bad combination for being in a group. You can try to be a tough longer but here is the bad news:
1) you will never win an in party argument that comes down to a dice off (or just a disagreement) without force.
This is the exact sort of mathless assertion/assumption that leads people into thinking that there are large differences in how actually charismatic different charisma scores are, when the differences would actually be barely perceptible. 1) is false. Just a literally false statement. It's not even a statement that's close to true. A character with a lower charisma score will do better on a charisma check than a character with a higher charisma score - but not much less. Only once several levels have passed, once a diplomacy-and-charisma-focused character has had time to accumulate a fair number of ranks in diplomacy does it really become "never", and that's mostly the effect of the diplomacy. And guess what? Even if Harsk had wasted a bunch of points starting with a 10 in Charisma, that would barely delay this.
I essentially never end up in situations where players are making diplomacy checks against each other, but if I did, a significant chunk of the time it would just shake out as additional evidence that there's barely any difference between a 6 and even a 12. That's math. That's the way math and bonuses and die-rolling work. Harsk won't never win without force. Of the three NPCs he's presented alongside in Kingmaker book 1, Harsk will roll a higher diplomacy check than Sajan (the monk) or Amiri (the barbarian), who have 8 Cha, 43% of the time, and they'll tie about 5% of the time. Against Lini (the druid), who has 15 Cha, he'll beat her 30% of the time and they'll tie about 4% of the time. If you're not playing your characters such that a 6 Cha dwarf will believably make a better impression than the 15 Cha gnome over 1/3 of the time, then your fluff is deviating from the crunch.
Okay, but perhaps the kingmaker bunch isn't (despite the campaign they're running) the best at diplomacy. Let's pull out Lem, the iconic bard. He doesn't have diplomacy trained, but let's pretend he did train that instead of, say, Climb. Surely charismatic Bard Lem, with Diplomacy trained, will always show up Harsk! Nope. He only beats Harsk at diplomacy checks 86% of the time. Sure, that's a lot, but Lem-with-Diplo is the most charismatic iconic! (I think!) Almost one-in-seven times, though, Harsk, who everyone supposedly HATES WITH LOATHING because he has 6 charisma, will impress a random NPC more.
you'd think that a cleric with 19+ wis and a wizard with 19+ int would remember what spells they have that would be useful to aid thier ally from falling to his potential death.
maybe if he was more likeable.
You make it sound like CHA 6 = good reason to commit murder. Yeah, I'm sure you're not twisting or slanting your source material at all.
If a character could use point buy and drop a score to as low as 3 but recieved no points for going under 7 do you think they would do it for purely rp reasons?Seen it happen. A local PFS player recalled a home game in which the GM added a fighter to the party (small group), but didn't want the players to pump him for info, so he had 3 INT. His name was "Duh". The player fell so in love with the character that he tried his best to recreate him for PFS, and was sad that he wasn't allowed to drop his INT any further than 7.
So the pfs dm, never allowed him to recreate duh as a 3 int character? What if he was dropping points for no benefit? Duh must be revived! Rofl/
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So the pfs dm, never allowed him to recreate duh as a 3 int character? What if he was dropping points for no benefit? Duh must be revived! Rofl/
Well, being organized play, the GM can't go making exceptions. Everyone's gotta play by the same rules, so on paper his INT had to be 7. But don't worry, he roleplays him with INT 3. :)
Having read through this entire thread I have to say the OP is not being a jerk, he just was not able to anticipate that his players would not have the same view of dump stats that he did. A calm, reasonable discussion after the fact to explain that he didn't want the player to min/max his character to such a degree should solve it. If the player still doesn't like it, that's tough. He has to follow the same rules for that table as everyone else.
I can see, however, that some people feel that the GM is "forcing" them to make their character a certain way and resent the interference. I had the opposite problem with my group. Many of them wanted to have charismatic characters, but didn't feel like they could do so without gimping their combat abilities. There are only so many times you can play a "gruff" or "stoic" or "smelly" fighter before you think, "Hey! I want to play a fighter that is smart and charming!"
What I did was tell them to make a 20 pt buy character. Then, when they were done, I gave them the option to raise one of their dump stats. A 7 becomes a 12, 8 or 9 becomes a 14, 10 becomes 15.
So a Barbarian, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue, and Wizard raised Charisma. A Cleric, Paladin and Sorcerer raised Intelligence. A Bard raised Wisdom.
I was flexible of course. If someone had already raised their dump stat for RP reasons (and some did) I let them lower the dump stat back down and spend the points they saved on other things. Or they could switch one dump stat for a another. So a Wizard could raise Strength instead of Charisma.
It was a big hit. Now the Fighter is handsome, and intimidating. The Wizard is witty and charming. The Paladin has a brain... and skills! Finally we had an adventuring group that looks heroic and aren't a bunch of social trolls. ;-)
I ran a game once where most of the players were good in combat in their way, and had social skills.
So the monk had a beautiful ac, a low charisma, but a great diplomacy.
The cross class commander sort of guy, had a bit in each of the three but was not a master of dip, bluff or intimidate.
The game changed quite a bit, melee was a little less important, and just one of the sources of excitement.