I should find my wife's rogue stats. The DM said she should have demigod status for that.
The craziest stats I've ever rolled/seen rolled were for a friend of mine's bard. It was her first time playing D&D and she wanted a bard. I was walking her through character creation and at the time we were using the 4d6, take highest 3 method that was in the 3.x PHB. She generated the following scores.
17, 17, 17, 17, 18, 18. Using the same dice we normally play with, so I know they weren't loaded. Had I not actually been sitting there walking her through it, I probably would have never believed it. O.o
Yeeep, back each-other up.
Dabbler, I've heard the love of facts before (I control the facts, I win, nyaaa nyaaa). The fact is, the pf monk gets a great deal, not much of which is concentrated on to hit or damage. They aren't swift killers if ac or dr is too high, that is one of the weaknesses. This doesn't mean they are useless, can't do anything or contribute.
We have never said they are completely useless. They just struggle in many games unless the GM is being nice, even if the builder has a high level of system mastery.<----That has yet to be disproven. They do ok versus mooks, but so do the other combat classes.
You can give them more, or rather the designers can, but they are already pushing balance, as some have explained prior. Their saves are great, their movement is great, their bab and hit die are okay, they have class abilities, ki abilities, free feats and a steady escalation of their damage type and ac bonus with zero reliance on weapons or getting them enchanted. Which leaves plenty of money left over for aiding rp, or building a school to train more monks (oh no!).
The some of all these together means they struggle to contribute consistently unless the GM is being nice.
Facts? Evidence? Ha ha, I too have a fondness for evidence, for examples and what experience has shown. I won't call people liars when they talk of their experiences, because their claims don't match my opinionated views. Which is why this thread has a far more pleasant (celebratory?) vibe about it:http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p3s6?stories-of-success-about-monks
I also have good monk stories. I am however not going to be deluded by that experience because I also had a really high point buy. Without that point buy, which is listed in this very thread we are in now the monk would have been in trouble.
This above thread is pretty fun so far, and doesn't have an ugly tone. It isn't filled with angry people that chuck a wally when you disagree with them, or demand more evidence which they have no interest in accepting. Well, wallow in your desperate agitation that the monk is weak, praise each-other and pat your backs. I'm off to read of good times, and that monk characters as others attest, can lead to good fun and effective heroic times in-game.Because the game should be about great experiences, having a lot of fun through fine characters, and sharing those stories later. The fixation on dpr and to hit is the opposite. A truly limited horizon for rpg players.
There is no DPR fixation, but I guess you will just keep ignoring that.
3.5 loyalist I am disappointed by the dishonestly of your last paragraph. You act as if the monk's AC when he focuses on AC or his struggle to be a scout has never been mentioned. Dabbler made a monk that was not good with DPR. He was hard to kill, but in the fights we had he did not do well, and the fights were made before the monk.
If we are either building or playing the monk wrong then tell us how. Otherwise you really don't have much of an argument.
Actually with an agile amulet he got good at DPR, as good as the strength monk but without the bad AC ;)
Actually with an agile amulet he got good at DPR, as good as the strength monk but without the bad AC ;)
Agile is a really good enhancement. Unfortunately on an amulet of makes it super expensive. That being said, Agile is pretty darn amazing in general and makes a lot of builds come together (sometimes I wonder if it makes it too easy as honestly melee attack and damage is about all Strength has, but it's darn good at it, whereas Dexterity = Init, Reflex, AC, and lots of skills. Star Wars d20 had a problem of Dexterity being the God-stat in that, and a big influence to that was because Strength wasn't important for dealing damage in that system, so Weapon Finesse + Dexterity meant you had better to-hit, to-AC, and so forth with minimal to no real loss in damage).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, it is filled with moments when monks were able to do something. You know this really says something the opposite to what you are trying to say, though, don't you? Why do we need a 'monk saved the party' moment thread? Because those moments are rare, that's why. Reading that thread I see monks that had insanely good stats (three 18s), archetypes (we are saying the core monk needs a boost), corner case situations, and fluky luck. Forgive me, but I think this more proves my point about the monk being mechanically weak than not.
Not just @Dabbler but to everyone.
I am the guy who posted the monk story with the three 18's. It is a true story, however I did so to prove a point.
When my player rolled substantially better than the group she choose to limit her power by taking a mechanically inferior class, and a mechanically inferior archetype that was propped up by a set of absolutely ridiculous stats.
This game is why my group switched to point buy.
When the monk's stats are 18,18,16,18,16,15 and the Barbarian with levels spent in a Pet-Master PrC , I forget the name, are 16,12,15,12,8,13 there is a clear difference. Yet, the monk just barely kept up...
I am in the monk's need help camp, especially considering the ,well-needed, buff that other martials have received in pathfinder.
You should not need 3 18's to do well and not feel like a drag on the party.
|
That being said, Agile is pretty darn amazing in general and makes a lot of builds come together (sometimes I wonder if it makes it too easy as honestly melee attack and damage is about all Strength has, but it's darn good at it, whereas Dexterity = Init, Reflex, AC, and lots of skills. Star Wars d20 had a problem of Dexterity being the God-stat in that, and a big influence to that was because Strength wasn't important for dealing damage in that system, so Weapon Finesse + Dexterity meant you had better to-hit, to-AC, and so forth with minimal to no real loss in damage).
That slippery slope is part of what fed into the local perception of Agile being overpowered. That combined with it not being in any of the actual books has made it something I can't really depend on as a definitely-available option for non-HULKMONK monks. :(
That being said, Agile is pretty darn amazing in general and makes a lot of builds come together (sometimes I wonder if it makes it too easy as honestly melee attack and damage is about all Strength has, but it's darn good at it, whereas Dexterity = Init, Reflex, AC, and lots of skills. Star Wars d20 had a problem of Dexterity being the God-stat in that, and a big influence to that was because Strength wasn't important for dealing damage in that system, so Weapon Finesse + Dexterity meant you had better to-hit, to-AC, and so forth with minimal to no real loss in damage).That slippery slope is part of what fed into the local perception of Agile being overpowered. That combined with it not being in any of the actual books has made it something I can't really depend on as a definitely-available option for non-HULKMONK monks. :(
Things that make you SAD-er are always going to be a significant power boost to someone and probably open to exploitation somehow. The other particularly awful thing about Agile is that when your build relies on it you have to put up with many levels of suck before you get access. And depending on how your GM is with loot, downtime, and item access you may have a long wait. Personally I'd like to put Agile in a sack with Dervish Dance and some rocks and chuck the whole thing in the river.
Things that make you SAD-er are always going to be a significant power boost to someone and probably open to exploitation somehow. The other particularly awful thing about Agile is that when your build relies on it you have to put up with many levels of suck before you get access. And depending on how your GM is with loot, downtime, and item access you may have a long wait. Personally I'd like to put Agile in a sack with Dervish Dance and some rocks and chuck the whole thing in the river.That being said, Agile is pretty darn amazing in general and makes a lot of builds come together (sometimes I wonder if it makes it too easy as honestly melee attack and damage is about all Strength has, but it's darn good at it, whereas Dexterity = Init, Reflex, AC, and lots of skills. Star Wars d20 had a problem of Dexterity being the God-stat in that, and a big influence to that was because Strength wasn't important for dealing damage in that system, so Weapon Finesse + Dexterity meant you had better to-hit, to-AC, and so forth with minimal to no real loss in damage).That slippery slope is part of what fed into the local perception of Agile being overpowered. That combined with it not being in any of the actual books has made it something I can't really depend on as a definitely-available option for non-HULKMONK monks. :(
Very true. This came up with a friend of mine whom I play online with. She was trying to decide on something for her build and was torn. Ultimately using the Agile weapon property means that she could dump Strength, but it would mean having to shell out 8,000 gp or craft it herself, and then being a -1 enhancement behind anyone else for the same juice; and she'd have to spend quite a few levels sucking (and her build could more or less be rendered impotent by the removal of said weapon, which means dispel magic is all it takes to screw her up in combat).
Things that make you SAD-er are always going to be a significant power boost to someone and probably open to exploitation somehow. The other particularly awful thing about Agile is that when your build relies on it you have to put up with many levels of suck before you get access. And depending on how your GM is with loot, downtime, and item access you may have a long wait. Personally I'd like to put Agile in a sack with Dervish Dance and some rocks and chuck the whole thing in the river.Very true. This came up with a friend of mine whom I play online with. She was trying to decide on something for her build and was torn. Ultimately using the Agile weapon property means that she could dump Strength, but it would mean having to shell out 8,000 gp or craft it herself, and then being a -1 enhancement behind anyone else for the same juice; and she'd have to spend quite a few levels sucking (and her build could more or less be rendered impotent by the removal of said weapon, which means dispel magic is all it takes to screw her up in combat).
That why I never rely on Guided/Agile weapons. At least not for my primary form of attack. My melee Cleric will not dump Str just because he can eventually buy a guided mace, but since he probably won't be ablt to afford a high Dex modifier and is not focused on archery, a Guided bow might be a nice thing to have.
That said... Why did Paizo even create these weapon enhancements? Did the devs feel like Dex and Wis were not good enough??? Where is the Cha love, Paizo? Like a "Valorous" weapon enhancement or a "Force of Personality" feat?
Poor Charisma... It's the red-headed stepchild of character attributes...
If you want to play a monk and deal damage, Zen Archer is where it's at.
Improved precise strike at level 6. Jack dex to the max, mediocre str for mighty composite (14 worked for me). Then TWF WITH A BOW to your heart's content.
We had two front liners to be the wall in front of me while I was firing off 4 attacks a round (1d8+1d6+10). Using a +1 mighty(+2) shock longbow. Was level 9 so deadly aim +4 and wep spec +2, almost always in PB range.
Using ki and haste thats 6 attacks a round, 4 at highest bonus. If anything got close I would tumble 30ft away, the tanks would reposition and I recommence operation turret.
I bought 2 efficient quivers because I was burning through ammo.
I finally died when we did the Lordship of the Isles slavelord campaign where your party loses ALL their gear.
While I enjoyed being a glass cannon with most of the neat monk tricks, I was a one trick pony and I'm sure experts here could have pointed out a better ranged combination somehow. It is sad that the only viable build I saw was with a gimmick archtype.
|
Since we are already way off topic...
Since many GMs strangely thing that a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance would be taken into consideration by NPC's who meet them and might effect pretty much every aspect of non-combat social interactions, perhaps they think it is already a pretty powerful ability.
Crazy talk...Role playing not involving Rolls. Madness.
Problem is... As things are, Charisma amounts to no more than a bonus to a few skills. (Unless one of your class abilities relies on it, but that can be said about any attribute)
I don't even need Charisma to role play a charismatic person. There is no difference between having a +4 Charisma and 4 ranks in Diplomacy. Or are you saying that NPCs look to someone and say "he's not charismatic, he just has a few ranks in Diplomacy. Let's shun him!"?
Every attribute does something other than boosting skill rolls and all of them give you a solid penalty to dumping it, be it a damage, to hit, AC, saves or HP. Except Charisma.
There is a reason Cha is the most common dump stat.
Since we are already way off topic...
Since many GMs strangely thing that a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance would be taken into consideration by NPC's who meet them and might effect pretty much every aspect of non-combat social interactions, perhaps they think it is already a pretty powerful ability.
Crazy talk...Role playing not involving Rolls. Madness.
I fail to see how discussing weapon properties that may influence a monk's competency is way off topic. Especially not off topic enough to warrant you trying to start an argument over Charisma.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also a tendency in some groups where whoever has the best Charisma and ranks in Cha-skills does all the talking for the group, while everyone else stands behind them silently. Which means even the meager penalties for low Charisma may never come into play.
All this talk about Monks having abilities keying off of too many stats and needing to choose something to neglect got me thinking: what if every class were like that? What if every class had different abilities keying off of a variety of stats? It seems like it would help level the playing field, make choices of where to assign attributes more nontrivial (instead of their priorities being to some extent decided automatically by your choice of class), make certain classes more interesting, and allow a better variety of character concepts.
The Fighter has a little bit of this already via Armor Training, since a standard two-hander often can't quite get the full benefit of the raised max dex bonus. But what if fighters also had Int-based abilities that let them function as a tactician in battle, or Cha-based leader and warlord powers? The classical image of a Rogue is clever and guileful, but no Rogue class features key off Int, and the Rogue already has enough skill points that high Int isn't needed - but what if a good Int score were actually rewarded by class features?
(Or what if spellcasting was actually affected in some way by which casting stat was being used, or by other stats? There are a lot of variables in spellcasting - maximum spell level that can be cast, spells per day, save DC's, casting time, range, duration, spell effect, spells known - that for each caster all key off either a single casting stat or no stat at all (using character level instead), and which pretty much scale the same from class/archetype to class/archetype even though they may use different casting stats and thematically should manifest quite differently. But I digress.)
Rather than making more attributes obsolete, or creating meaningless choices where all stats do the same thing (I can focus on Str to pump my to-hit and damage, or focus on Dex to pump my... to-hit and damage again?), or practically telling most classes that there are two or three stats that give them negligible benefits and aren't worth focusing on, what if every class could meaningfully use any attribute?
The problem, of course, is that the Monk expects you to max out every ability score in order to approach basic competence. But I think the fundamental premise of giving classes the ability to make use of more scores, not fewer, is actually a good one.
Instead of making the Monk key off fewer attributes, why not make it stronger so that it can thrive even if it has a poor score in one of the attributes that some of its features key off? Make its features better, give it more features, and let the players decide which of those features their particular monk will focus on.
Problem is... As things are, Charisma amounts to no more than a bonus to a few skills. (Unless one of your class abilities relies on it, but that can be said about any attribute)
I don't even need Charisma to role play a charismatic person. There is no difference between having a +4 Charisma and 4 ranks in Diplomacy. Or are you saying that NPCs look to someone and say "he's not charismatic, he just has a few ranks in Diplomacy. Let's shun him!"?
Every attribute does something other than boosting skill rolls and all of them give you a solid penalty to dumping it, be it a damage, to hit, AC, saves or HP. Except Charisma.
There is a reason Cha is the most common dump stat.
On a side note, in OSRIC (1E D&D basically) you gain followers and such from having a high Charisma, so it's almost like built-in leadership.
There's also a tendency in some groups where whoever has the best Charisma and ranks in Cha-skills does all the talking for the group, while everyone else stands behind them silently. Which means even the meager penalties for low Charisma may never come into play.
All this talk about Monks having abilities keying off of too many stats and needing to choose something to neglect got me thinking: what if every class were like that? What if every class had different abilities keying off of a variety of stats? It seems like it would help level the playing field, make choices of where to assign attributes more nontrivial (instead of their priorities being to some extent decided automatically by your choice of class), make certain classes more interesting, and allow a better variety of character concepts.
The Fighter has a little bit of this already via Armor Training, since a standard two-hander often can't quite get the full benefit of the raised max dex bonus. But what if fighters also had Int-based abilities that let them function as a tactician in battle, or Cha-based leader and warlord powers? The classical image of a Rogue is clever and guileful, but no Rogue class features key off Int, and the Rogue already has enough skill points that high Int isn't needed - but what if a good Int score were actually rewarded by class features?
(Or what if spellcasting was actually affected in some way by which casting stat was being used, or by other stats? There are a lot of variables in spellcasting - maximum spell level that can be cast, spells per day, save DC's, casting time, range, duration, spell effect, spells known - that for each caster all key off either a single casting stat or no stat at all (using character level instead), and which pretty much scale the same from class/archetype to class/archetype even though they may use different casting stats and thematically should manifest quite differently. But I digress.)
Rather than making more attributes obsolete, or creating meaningless choices where all...
I suggested to a friend of mine that if he wanted to make casters more MAD for a lower power game, to have save DCs based off Charisma, bonus spells based off Wisdom, and maximum spell level known based on Intelligence. For all classes.
On a side note, in OSRIC (1E D&D basically) you gain followers and such from having a high Charisma, so it's almost like built-in leadership.Problem is... As things are, Charisma amounts to no more than a bonus to a few skills. (Unless one of your class abilities relies on it, but that can be said about any attribute)
I don't even need Charisma to role play a charismatic person. There is no difference between having a +4 Charisma and 4 ranks in Diplomacy. Or are you saying that NPCs look to someone and say "he's not charismatic, he just has a few ranks in Diplomacy. Let's shun him!"?
Every attribute does something other than boosting skill rolls and all of them give you a solid penalty to dumping it, be it a damage, to hit, AC, saves or HP. Except Charisma.
There is a reason Cha is the most common dump stat.
Sniff. But there are no monks in OSRIC. Sniff. I do like the clean look of the rules though and I have a copy.
MA
Honestly the whole Charisma thing doesn't bother me. I really don't think that (for most classes) having much Charisma should have any influence on your capability or standing as an adventurer, and it damn sure shouldn't have anything to do with your physical attractiveness or beauty or hygiene because those are all aspects that are entirely physical aspects of a character, not mental (and the idea that a wizard with a 16 Intelligence, 13 Wisdom, and 5 Charisma can't figure out how to take a bath and dress himself is stupid).
I'm 100% fine with Charisma being what it is now. An ability score that provides some passive benefits to skills, leadership, while having a primary role in using and resisting magical effects based on willpower, being a fuel source for spontaneous casting and spell-like abilities, and powering class features based off strength of personality (like Divine Grace).
I frankly don't really care to see a game where your Charisma makes you a better character in such tangible ways as modifying your durability or your attack rolls and so forth without a magical reasoning behind it (Force of Personality was okay though to me, because it allowed you to overcome Will saves via force of will rather than awareness).
Adventuring by its nature is a calling to people who don't fit into society so easily, who excel in other areas. I don't understand why people are so fixated on Charisma all the time. The best complaint I've ever heard about it was that all ability scores should be equal. I am forced to disagree but it was a fair complaint. Ability scores shall never be equal to everyone. For martials, Strength is equal but Strength to a Wizard is a dumpstat unless they have something special they're doing. Charisma is not a major factor for most PCs, but for Paladins, Antipaladins, Bards, Sorcerers, and Oracles it's a pretty big deal.
There's a sort of balance hidden in there somewhere, and I'm okay with mental statistics being the softest and most nebulous of the ability scores (because trying to define the complete range of mental capacity and nuances into 3 arbitrary numbers would just be stupid and futile). I do have concerns about stepping on one ability scores' toes too much (as with thinking that the agile property comes a bit too close to making Dexterity a god-stat, but then I also wouldn't want to see a feat that made Paladins base their abilities off Strength either, nor would I like to see an option that replaced Charisma with Constitution.
^^ Yep. Also, some very powerful leaders in history have had the personality of a old sock (low Cha) while still being able to inspire/direct/fool their followers greatly (good skill bonuses).
He has a point Ciretose. I looked as this thread as the amusing step child thread of the other one.
And honestly, Ashiel has a point. Well, she ignored fighters in the wall of text, but that is ok. It isn't a fighter thread lol.
Now, she didn't really throw out any viable solutions, but that is ok to, like I said, step child thread anyway lol.
I've thrown out enough solutions for monks in the past. I even rebuilt them for use in my games and discussed fixing them many times. As for Fighters, I didn't mention them because I've mentioned them in that other thread today (talking about Fighters vs Tarrasque), and I don't really care much for Fighters (because I think their peers the Ranger and Paladin bring more to a party).
My ideal group if someone was to ask is Ranger or Paladin + Bard + Wizard + Cleric (or Druid).
i just want to point out that a well built fighter can out skill monkey a ranger by a wide margin while still out damaging them in most fights.
improved improvisation is such a great feat chain for a fighter.
He has a point Ciretose. I looked as this thread as the amusing step child thread of the other one.
And honestly, Ashiel has a point. Well, she ignored fighters in the wall of text, but that is ok. It isn't a fighter thread lol.
Now, she didn't really throw out any viable solutions, but that is ok to, like I said, step child thread anyway lol.
I've thrown out enough solutions for monks in the past. I even rebuilt them for use in my games and discussed fixing them many times. As for Fighters, I didn't mention them because I've mentioned them in that other thread today (talking about Fighters vs Tarrasque), and I don't really care much for Fighters (because I think their peers the Ranger and Paladin bring more to a party).
My ideal group if someone was to ask is Ranger or Paladin + Bard + Wizard + Cleric (or Druid).
i just want to point out that a well built fighter can out skill monkey a ranger by a wide margin while still out damaging them in most fights.
improved improvisation is such a great feat chain for a fighter.
I am assuming human, the feat that gives you the skill point and hit point so you don't have to choose, that bring you up to 4 skill points before intelligence comes into play, and a few uses of skill focus.
the feat that gives you the skill point and hit point so you don't have to choose
You mean Fast Learner, the feat that is strictly inferior to Toughness? Why are you assuming anyone would take that?
the feat that gives you the skill point and hit point so you don't have to chooseYou mean Fast Learner, the feat that is strictly inferior to Toughness? Why are you assuming anyone would take that?
Because for the purpose of his idea it would allow him to get extra hp and skill points, both of which promote his idea of outfighting, and being just as good if not better than the ranger. All he would have to do is take it early in his career.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Things that make you SAD-er are always going to be a significant power boost to someone and probably open to exploitation somehow. The other particularly awful thing about Agile is that when your build relies on it you have to put up with many levels of suck before you get access. And depending on how your GM is with loot, downtime, and item access you may have a long wait. Personally I'd like to put Agile in a sack with Dervish Dance and some rocks and chuck the whole thing in the river.
In general, I agree with you. I had to beg my DM to let me have agile, as we were running regularly into foes with DR that my 1d10+5 unarmed strike damage just couldn't scratch, with CMDs edging toward 50, and often flying.
It was literally the only means I could find to make my monk effective in those circumstances.
On the subject of boosting other ability scores in other classes, well, we can't re-write D&D, but that "Wisdom for bonus spells, Intelligence to cast them, Charisma for save DCs" is one AWESOME way to limit spell-casters.
Sadly, we aren't able to re-write Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am still waiting for someone to tell Dabbler how he could have made or played his monk more effectively since some seem to think the class is ok.
<does not hold breathe>
Things that make you SAD-er are always going to be a significant power boost to someone and probably open to exploitation somehow. The other particularly awful thing about Agile is that when your build relies on it you have to put up with many levels of suck before you get access. And depending on how your GM is with loot, downtime, and item access you may have a long wait. Personally I'd like to put Agile in a sack with Dervish Dance and some rocks and chuck the whole thing in the river.In general, I agree with you. I had to beg my DM to let me have agile, as we were running regularly into foes with DR that my 1d10+5 unarmed strike damage just couldn't scratch, with CMDs edging toward 50, and often flying.
It was literally the only means I could find to make my monk effective in those circumstances.
On the subject of boosting other ability scores in other classes, well, we can't re-write D&D, but that "Wisdom for bonus spells, Intelligence to cast them, Charisma for save DCs" is one AWESOME way to limit spell-casters.
Sadly, we aren't able to re-write Pathfinder.
Honestly I have no desire to actually implement those ability score limitations on spellcasters and I'm not sure I'd want the standard game to reflect that either. Merely that a friend of mine said he wanted to run a game where magic was much weaker than it is in core, but he wanted to continue to allow the core casters without major rewrites. I explained that if that was the case he could go with the Int/Wis/Cha casting for all spellcasters and just use standard point buy (15 points) for his game.
If I was building an optimized wizard for that game, I would probably have a build that looked something like this.
Str 7, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 16. Intelligence merely needs to be lifted to 19 by 17th level to have access to all spells. Wisdom determines bonus spells so a little here is nice (but I could do without it) but honestly I can live without the bonus spells (either your stat is very high or it isn't here, as the difference between an 12 and a 14 is only 1 bonus 2nd level spell. Charisma is for saving throw DCs. Though I suppose I could just tank Charisma completely and dump into Intelligence and Wisdom and spam summons and buffs (go-go god-wizard).
Either way, if someone really wanted to limit casters, this would be a good way to do it. I haven't done so in my games because casters need their SAD to keep up with saving throw DCs (a 30 Intelligence means your highest spell is DC 29 without feats, which is below the average of 10 + 1/2 level + key ability) for 20th level. Enemy saving throws progress pretty quickly.
It'd kind of hurt partial casters too IMHO (paladins, rangers, bards, etc).
I am still waiting for someone to tell Dabbler how he could have made or played his monk more effectively since some seem to think the class is ok.
<does not hold breathe>
Yep, and it wasn't a weak monk, either - although I will grant I made some mistakes.
Making Caster MAD is definitely a decent method of restricting their strength some which is still very much a problem with PF.
I generally prefer a 2 stat split instead of a 3 stat split (bonus spells are nice but hardly worth investing a massive amount of build points to get).
So Arcane Casters would use Int for access to spells and bonus spells as Charisma for Save DCs
Divine casters would use Wis for spell access and bonus spells and Charisma for Save DCs.
That makes it so that all casters need to invest resources in keeping their charisma a decent level which means more money spent on expensive headbands and inherent bonuses at high level. Considering almost every martial type is going to have a 2 or a 3 stat boost belt it's only fair that casters have to experience some of the pain.
Yeah casters are going to take a hit in terms of spell DCs but personally I don't see any real significant problem with that as most casters Save DCs tend to dramatically outpace poor saves and in many cases good saves.
I expect the DM to provide a an equally impressive (if opposite) reaction when my 14 Cha (+2) character walks into a bar if a Cha 7 (-2) is such a deal breaker.
I argued this back in the forever ago. And got a lot of silly nonsense how equal numbers are not equal, since there is no upper limit, but there is a lower one, and that +2 somehow is less of a deviance than -1.
Penalizing charisma arbitrarily is silly. You cannot talk your way out of a paper bag if you don't gun for it. A cha 14 monk is as utterly useless as a cha 7 monk due to the fact that it is not a class that supports charisma skills, meaning you lose out on the +3 trained bonus... on top of being an even worse monk than you need to be, due to having PAID 5 points of your precious PB, rather than earned 4.
The monk in our party set his cha to 10 because of "Oh no, cannot be ugly!" and he has rolled ONE diplomacy check. EVER. And failed it miserably. Because whenever there is someone important to talk to, the bard does it. It is his schtick. Just like you don't send the wizard to represent the party in a hand to hand tournament.
Low ability scores are low. They will hurt you in any situation that requires good ability scores.
If your GM never has situations that effect your low ability scores, they are probably a boring GM.
Quoted for truth.
|
|
Skill are skills. Ability scores are ability scores.
Unless a good climb check gives you bonuses to your muscle and physical power, a good diplomacy, etc...doesn't improve your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Skills give you what they say they give you and nothing more.
You can (and I would argue should) work out with your GM how various ability scores manifest (there is Brad Pitt Charismatic and there is Hitler Charismatic) but you can't negotiate or intimidate your way into being Charismatic anymore than you can extra disable device your way to agility, reflexes, and balance or craft your way to improve how your character learns and reasons.
I know some people like to find ways to bend the rules like this is a video game in god mode, but the GM is more than just a referee who checks your math.
Quoted for truth.Low ability scores are low. They will hurt you in any situation that requires good ability scores.
If your GM never has situations that effect your low ability scores, they are probably a boring GM.
Quoted for untruth?
Low ability scores already DO hurt you in situations that require good ability checks without imagining new ways to mess over your players.
I can have a low Cha cloistered Monk who is diplomatic, but has no ability to lie or intimidate. I don't need a "good" DM to screw me over in situations where my character has actually developed (put ranks into Diplomacy) because my character didn't have a natural affinity for Cha, but was able to work at a particular aspect of it.
Again, would you make up additional penalties for any other stat? How about making characters with a low Int only read like a word a minute? They can still read, but lets stick it to them 'extra'. Because it's 'interesting'?
Of course, if a player and DM agree to find an additional penalty, and use it as a RP opportunity, obviously that's fine. To assume it as a base is...
Agreed. Plus the reverse must be true for there to be consistency. If merely having a low Charisma will make people hate you on sight (a very meta-gaming thing indeed) then having a 30 Charisma should mean that people should give you rights to everything they posses when they see you out of sheer awe.
There are already mechanical penalties. A character with a low Charisma is poor in many things (lying, positive/peaceful conversation, intimidating people, using magic devices, preforming, controlling things via magic, etc). Some of these things can (realistically) be overcome through practice (skills in most cases, but you will still be somewhat behind anyone who invested as heavily AND had a fair Charisma), but some of them cannot (you cannot use skill points to influence a charmed or dominated creature through a magic spell, nor use skill points to bend the will of a bound outsider for example). And you are losing an opportunity cost because every rank that you put into a skill to offset your Charisma to skills is a rank you won't get back.
As an example. Let's say we have a -1 Charisma. We want to be at least average at Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Use Magic Device (I'm ignoring perform 'cause it's niche). We'd need to invest 4 ranks in the skill to get to average. To have that at 1st level we'd have to soak the entirety of an 18 Intelligence's bonus skill points. Instead, we'd probably end up putting a point or two into it over multiple levels. In all cases, that's 4 skill points gone to get back to +0.
If your Charisma is -2, then you need to invest 8 skill points to get it back to +0, and a minimum of 2nd level.
Now this is actually a good thing in terms of roleplaying. Some of us want our characters to be more realistic, and to me realism also includes not being equally good at everything. In the case of my fighter Sigfried, I didn't want him to be a good liar (actually quite the opposite). I didn't think it was appropriate for him to be even average as Use Magic Device (he will never activate a wand for example), but what I did want him to be decent at was interacting with people in a friendly and/or negotiating manner (Diplomacy), and he is.
I get sick and tired of hearing people insist that you must make up extra penalties for not being a Mary Sue who has no flaws and/or is bad at nothing. It only punishes people for not being Mary Sues whose lowest score is a 10.
I love how hyperbole leaps out from "It effects" to "Hate on sight".
Oh strawman, how hard it would be to fight you if anyone actually said anything close to that...
My apologies. I have to extrapolate a meaning since the actual penalties for ability scores are listed in the actual rules, and you are unspecific. Call it human nature to assume the worst. It doesn't really matter if it's an inch or a mile though, it's still messed up.
|
|
I love how hyperbole leaps out from "It effects" to "Hate on sight".
Oh strawman, how hard it would be to fight you if anyone actually said anything close to that...
My apologies. I have to extrapolate a meaning since the actual penalties for ability scores are listed in the actual rules, and you are unspecific. Call it human nature to assume the worst. It doesn't really matter if it's an inch or a mile though, it's still messed up.
As opposed to extrapolating additional functions to skills when those functions are already attributed to the ability score, mixed with GM discretion about circumstances.
Or how exactly do you determine initial attitude?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Ashiel
I disagree with your instance about Charisma. I'd really like if all attributes were about the same in utility. Of course, one or another attribute will be more or less important for one or another class. I don't have a problem with that. My problem is when one attribute is universally awesome (Dex) and another is everyone's favorite dump-stat (Cha), (unless one of their abilities relies on it, but again, that could be said about every attribute). I hate that an Int based sorcerer is so much better than his Cha counterpart simply by virtue of having a better casting stat.
@ciretose
Wait... So even if I have 10 ranks in Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate, plus Skill Focus in one or more of them, I can't ever be competent in social situations if I have a low Cha?
Again, do NPCs look at me and say "pfff... you have low charisma... you suck!" even if I have a +10 bonus to diplomacy?
I've played a Barbarian with a Int score of 8, but he had lots of skill ranks in Knowledge(Nature). Would you say he can't be competent in knowledge checks because of his low Int score?
I'1m playing a druid who invested a trait and skill ranks i Diplomacy. Are you saying no matter how well he rolls, people won't take him seriously or like him because his Cha score is an 8?
The rules already penalize you for having a low attribute score. So why make it even worse for the character? Is this just to justify Charisma low utility and Dexterity's position as a god-stat?