| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Based on logical circumstances. If I don't know you then I'm probably indifferent. If my personality is standoffish and/or stubborn or selfish I might be unfriendly. The reverse is true. If I'm racist against elves then I might be unfriendly towards elves but indifferent towards other races and friendly towards humans (if I think humans are just better than others). I might be friendly towards adventurers in general due to hero worship, or I might be unfriendly towards adventurers because my son got it in his foolish head that he wanted to be an adventurer after seeing some throwing their money and some wyvern heads around and he ran off and got killed and I blame adventurers for it.
All things completely devoid of a metagame statistic that people do not wear tattooed on their faces. Double penalizing and double rewarding is stupid and arbitrary. If I make people unfriendly vs people with low Charisma, I am both metagaming and double penalizing, because now I'm increasing the DCs only in regards to those with low Charisma who are already penalized on those checks, whereas if I make them friendly towards someone with 15 Charisma I am metagaming and double rewarding, because I am lowering the DCs in addition to the bonus you get.
It takes no effort to see why this is a bad idea, bad design, and just plain bad. It reeks of metagaming, bad GMing, and so forth. I'm not the sort that will gloss over your weak stats (I track encumbrance, I track how long you can hold your breath, I will use rules for hot and cold environments, and I will use traps, poisons, and stuck doors, heavy treasure, check for different languages, put cryptic messages for linguists, and so forth), but I won't double penalize you beyond what the game says to (I'm not going to increase the DC of a Strength or Swim check by 5 because you're already weaker than average, and I'm not going to deny people the attempt at a Knowledge check because they have a lower than average Intelligence, and I'm not going to tell people they can't speak languages despite their investment in linguistics or bonus racial languages, etc).
When is this thread going to get locked anyway, it is so far off the rails at this point I can't imagine getting back to the original point.
Generally threads get locked when there is more fighting than talking going on. You could just leave. Some of us are still discussing the monk and things that influence the monk. Even the charisma discussion directly correlates with monks because it's one of the few ability scores they don't need solely for their survival.
|
This might be a derail but it futher illustrates problems the monk has:
If one wants to play an inspiring and/or attractive monk with a GM that demands that be represented in their CHA score, that leaves them hurting even more in their ability to perform as monks.
Personally I'd just let the monk player describe their appearance however they wanted. They have it rough enough as it is.
|
How exactly does the GM metagame? I'm curious how that works, since the GM is the only in control of all of the actions of the non-players, and presumably is taking all factors into consideration when deciding on how they act.
So how exactly would taking a players personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance into consideration when deciding on the actions of non-player characters constitute metagaming?
Because I would call that "GMing".
And yes, clearly my discussing a topic someone else brought up is why this isn't focused on the OP. This thread has been really on track with a detailed monk discussion for the last 400 posts or so.
Tell me more about the right way to play. Do you have a newsletter?
Actually, Charisma did become relevant to Monks when they released the Champion of Irori PrC. aka: "MADest Character Ever"
Well, I suppose you could get by with a low-ish Cha since you only need one Paladin level, IIRC. And you could have a 10 in Int...
|
|
Actually, Charisma did become relevant to Monks when they released the Champion of Irori PrC. aka: "MADest Character Ever"
Well, I suppose you could get by with a low-ish Cha since you only need one Paladin level, IIRC. And you could have a 10 in Int...
Yeah, I've been wrestling with how to approach that PrC for a while now, because it has flavor I very much want. Holy monk, must have.
|
|
So you don't think a well spoken and convincing Monk wouldn't have luck with the ladies?
I think many are in dire straights, if that's the case...
Show me where it says "well spoken".
"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."
When I think sexy I think Kofi Annan and Madeline Albright after a full minute of conversation.
Aww yeah...
I also use disable device checks to attempt to jump rope.
Oh, I have a character it could have worked for - diced up, and didn't get a single stat below 14. So I had a charismatic monk. Of course with an Oracle and a Paladin in the party she was kind of overshadowed anyway, but it was nice to be healthy, smart and cute as well as wise, fast, and strong.
It did get relevant in the end, as she became ruler of a nation and had to do diplomacy and make speeches and stuff.
@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.
Fair enough. I just think it's natural, is all. Low scores are not uncommon, and I think make sense. If you look at the average ability score statistics in the core rulebook, your average martial (heroic or not) has lower Charisma (which means that it's likely a group of soldiers probably get along better with other soldiers than with civilians who have spent more time on other things instead of training to fight and tell dirty jokes).
I don't think it's really necessary or even realistic for all classes to want all ability scores equally (and I see making it so as just a means of making character creation a more difficult process and encouraging everyone to just be entirely average).
I agree with your Int/Cha sorcerer. To that I have to say I believe that is more of a design flaw with the sorcerer than it is an innate system fail. If we look at classes that benefit from Charisma, Bards and Paladins and Sorcerers spring to mind. Paladins use their supernatural abilities to apply Charisma to things normally other more raw stats do. Bards use Charisma not only for their spells but for a variety of features in their class, but to a lesser extent than a Paladin and can afford less Charisma. Sorcerers pretty much just have it for casting but absolutely must have it in droves to keep their casting relevant.
Of course, it's like that with any ability score. If we made a caster that got their casting from Dexterity then suddenly wizards and sorcerers would be crying because they could have a casting stat that also gave X, Y, and Z to their character instead of a few extra skill points or bonuses to Charisma-based skills and opposed Charisma checks.
It seems to me that the issue is that sorcerer is fairly poorly designed. Sorcerers don't really get anything other than spontaneous casting (which is paid for by horrible spells known), and their bloodlines are generally completely independent of their statistics or use statistics that are unrelated to their Charisma dependency (such as having claws, which is clearly a melee strength-based perk).
If sorcerers were a little more like Paladins or even outsiders or other magical creatures and could apply their Charisma modifiers to things beyond just their casting, then they would be more on par with wizards. But that doesn't mean I think everyone should get Charisma applied to everything either.
One of the issues with Charisma as a statistic is it has little to nothing to do with adventuring. It really doesn't. Unless you draw power for adventuring from Charisma. But the majority of characters in D&D actually should have low Charisma. Most are bookworms who spend more time talking to their familiars than other human beings. Others are people who have trained for combat and killing. Others are folks who wander through the woods and their closest allies are dogs. Then you have a few folks who actually gain a practical power from their Charisma. In part this is something that makes them special. Not every warrior is cut out to be a Paladin.
But I think I may be approaching a circular chatter, so I'm going to pause right here for a moment.
|
|
Did I say that.
Nope.
So you need to deal with what I wrote, not what you wanted me to write because it would be easier to refute. Nowhere under diplomacy does it say well spoken, clever, or anything like that.
It says exactly what it says, and it does exactly what it says it does.
Wormtongue from Lord of the Rings was very persuasive, not so charismatic.
The characteristics you want to ascribe to diplomacy are found under the description for charisma.
Play them from where they are, not from where you would like them to be. Much like you wouldn't use knowledge:planes to see how well a player does at poker, you don't use diplomacy for things beyond it's scope.
And it's scope is 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.
How exactly does the GM metagame? I'm curious how that works, since the GM is the only in control of all of the actions of the non-players, and presumably is taking all factors into consideration when deciding on how they act.
Since you asked.
In role-playing games, metagaming can be defined as any out of character action made by a player's character which makes use of knowledge that the character is not meant to be aware of. (Metagaming while taking part in relatively competitive games, or those with a more serious tone, is typically not well received, because a character played by a metagamer does not act in a way that reflects the character's in-game experiences and back-story.)
An character acts as though aware of an invisible statistic that "doesn't exist" in their reality. One does not say "Okay guys, this NPC has a Charisma of 12. I just want you to know that before you interact with him/her so that you have a better idea of how to arbitrarily begin your interaction with this NPC".
Player 1: "Um, okay. I greet them, because I've never met them before."
Player 2: "I'm a lawful evil sorcerer with a 20 Charisma. I view the man with disrespecting contempt because he is not as Charismatic as I am."
Player 1: "But you view everyone with disrespecting contempt..."
Player 2: "Yes, but him moreso!"
Examples of metagaming include:
- Adjusting a character's actions based on foreknowledge of the long-term intentions of the gamemaster.
- Gaining knowledge from Out-Of Character.
- Using knowledge from a previously played or dead character.
- Using certain types of attack or defense based on the strengths and weaknesses of an opponent that the player's character is unaware of.
- Acting on any knowledge that the character is not aware of (such as creating gunpowder in a Dark Ages or Middle Ages setting).
- Adjusting a character's behavior towards other player characters based on real-life relationships with other players.
- Using knowledge of the game's mechanics to gain an advantage in the game by having the character do something incompatible with that character's personality.
- Assuming that something that appears to be wrong or unlikely in the game world is a mistake of the gamemaster rather than something that could be investigated. (This does not apply to situations where the mistake appears in the gamemaster's depiction of the world rather than in the world itself, which can cause a player to become aware of something which their character is not aware of.)
- Deciding on a character's course of action based on how the game's mechanics will affect the outcome without more significant regard placed on how the character would actually behave.
- Any action that is based upon the knowledge that one is playing a game.
- Another form of metagaming occurs as a form of powergaming during character creation, when a player takes flaws or liabilities that they know the gamemaster is unlikely to fully exploit, thereby acquiring extra creation options without paying a corresponding penalty.
- In split-screen games, using another player's viewpoint to gather information that one's own character doesn't have access to.
- Assuming that if an item (often a chest, desk or book-case) is mentioned by the gamemaster during the initial description of an area, it must have some relevance to the storyline, and immediately searching or examining it. (while ignoring other furnishings or objects that are most likely there as well).
Traditionally, metagaming is generally frowned upon in role-playing communities, as it upsets the suspension of disbelief and affects game balance. However, some narrativist indie role-playing games deliberately support metagaming in "Director stance" and encourage shared storytelling among players.[1]In addition, live action roleplaying games with a more cinematic style may use metagame references to specific books and films, either before the game or during play, to prompt the players as to the atmosphere the organisers are aiming to create.
More broadly, metagaming can refer to those aspects of play that exist outside the gameworld, such as out of character discussions between players and the gamemaster.
You seem to think an amazing number of things are poorly designed.
It's a big game by a lot of different writers. Many things within it are poorly designed. Paizo agrees through action, because if few things were poorly designed we wouldn't even have Pathfinder, we would have D&D 3.0 because nothing was poorly designed. The monk is poorly designed. The sorcerer was poorly designed (but it's a bit better these days thanks to re-design by Paizo). Drowning setting your HP to 0 was poor design (since it could actually make you healthier).
Countless spells have been re-designed, as have been feats, class features, and so forth. During the beta, there was poor design (like the bard having a save or die that had a DC equal to the bard's Perform check result). Poor design can be a fact of life. People aren't perfect. That's why we have these conversations to learn.
This idea of a lower charisma score having additional penalties above and beyond the actual penalty the book gives you is silly to me. There is no need for it. Yeah charisma is often overlooked, and some people want it to have more weight, and I understand that, but that is all someone should say. Looking for excuses to make it stronger is just that to me, an excuse. If I had a high disable device score with a low dex I don't think anyone would penalize me for that.
Most starting attitudes are dependent upon the NPC's disposition as a whole, not the PC's charisma. Other than that there may be circumstantial modifiers such as wearing a certain holy symbol that might change that or give yo a modifer to diplomacy or other social checks. <---Using AP's as the standard.
We(many of us) have had this conversation before though, and nobody is going to convince anyone.
More off-topic:I would like for the sorcerers to receive something similar to the oracles mysteries. I think they are generally better, and more unique.
Yeah, I've been wrestling with how to approach that PrC for a while now, because it has flavor I very much want. Holy monk, must have.Actually, Charisma did become relevant to Monks when they released the Champion of Irori PrC. aka: "MADest Character Ever"
Well, I suppose you could get by with a low-ish Cha since you only need one Paladin level, IIRC. And you could have a 10 in Int...
Yeah, I like its flavor too... But I'm not sure how I'd build one...
@Ashiel:
You do have a point that it's more of a design flaw of the Sorcerer than Charisma itself. For some reason, the system favors prepared casters a lot more than spontenous casters. A friend once told me one of the creators of DnD 3.0 didn't like sorcerers, I don't know if it's true, but it sure feels like it. I'd really love if PF 2.0 unnerfed spontaneous casting.
I'm not saying all stats should be equally important for everyone, but they should at least have some relevance.
We have lots of tales about charismatic heroes. And charisma can have some relation to adventuring. For example, I like Kirthfinder's idea of splitting will saves in two. It really makes sense to me, but I agree that it makes character creation more difficult, but in this case it's not a bad thing. I like the idea of having it be more complicated than "dump Cha, boost the rest". I like that if someone wants to make a charismatic character, they're not penalized by the system because Cha adds so little to their abilities.
IMO, if Will saves were based in the highest attribute between Wis and Cha, it'd probably be enough and give characters a real choice.
|
|
Oh, I have a character it could have worked for - diced up, and didn't get a single stat below 14. So I had a charismatic monk. Of course with an Oracle and a Paladin in the party she was kind of overshadowed anyway, but it was nice to be healthy, smart and cute as well as wise, fast, and strong.
So. Jealous. :(
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the record, on topic, I want the monk to get the boosts it needs to be competitive. I have posted regularly in these threads, and I've created suggestion threads.
And with the exception of the most recent one, most of them get derailed by theorycrafters and whining. I get why the Devs bailed, I would have bailed myself if I didn't really enjoy the monk class.
I would love for these threads to stay focused on achievable goals, setting criteria, playtesting builds, etc...but it always seems to end up going off into penis measuring of rules knowledge and minutia.
It seems as if more problems with rules technicalities no one ever used in their games have been found in these threads than solved.
That is where the monk hate comes from. It started as monk lovers trying to improve the build, it became theorycrafters spamming the threads, it chased the devs and non-monk lovers out with the volume and now we are basically waiting for the burned out Devs to come up with a solution because we, as a community, are to ADHD to focus a few threads on actual solutions.
That is why people now hate monks.
|
|
Y'know, operating under the absolute CHA paradigm, it is nigh-impossible to build effective monks fitting the artwork for Sajan, the Qinggong monk from Ultimate Magic, or any of the monks from Ultimate Combat with a 20 point buy unless you have some extreme system mastery.
That just isn't right.
Not true at all. You can be beautiful and not charismatic and you can be hideous and quite charismatic.
How it manifests is between you and your GM. That it manifests is what matters.
Let's see.. Spontaneous caster:
Delayed spell-casting progression
Slow metamagic.
Very few spells known.
"Hey, sorc, you got a new level! Now you know exactly ONE spell of your highest level! But you can use it THREE times per day! ONE more than a Wizard of same level!"
While a prepared caster can simply use a scrolls, wands, pearls of power and divinations. Some of them can also spontaneously cast selected spells. The worst offender being the Spellbinder wizard archetype.
EDIT: Okay, I'm done derailing the thread. Not that I think there is anything else to talk about monks in here...
Master Arminas, Dabbler and Ciretose already presented the class' flaws and lots of possible solutions. Hopefully, the developers take a long and relaxing time off from monk threads and one day come back with a helpful revision.
I am wondering if the OP is convinced?
Yeah, I've been wrestling with how to approach that PrC for a while now, because it has flavor I very much want. Holy monk, must have.Actually, Charisma did become relevant to Monks when they released the Champion of Irori PrC. aka: "MADest Character Ever"
Well, I suppose you could get by with a low-ish Cha since you only need one Paladin level, IIRC. And you could have a 10 in Int...
Yeah, I like its flavor too... But I'm not sure how I'd build one...
@Ashiel:
You do have a point that it's more of a design flaw of the Sorcerer than Charisma itself. For some reason, the system favors prepared casters a lot more than spontenous casters. A friend once told me one of the creators of DnD 3.0 didn't like sorcerers, I don't know if it's true, but it sure feels like it. I'd really love if PF 2.0 unnerfed spontaneous casting.
I'm not saying all stats should be equally important for everyone, but they should at least have some relevance.
We have lots of tales about charismatic heroes. And charisma can have some relation to adventuring. For example, I like Kirthfinder's idea of splitting will saves in two. It really makes sense to me, but I agree that it makes character creation more difficult, but in this case it's not a bad thing. I like the idea of having it be more complicated than "dump Cha, boost the rest". I like that if someone wants to make a charismatic character, they're not penalized by the system because Cha adds so little to their abilities.
IMO, if Will saves were based in the highest attribute between Wis and Cha, it'd probably be enough and give characters a real choice.
Personally I support the idea of splitting saving throws to Str/Con, Dex/Int, Wis/Cha or what-have you. It would alleviate some MAD-ness in classes, makes sense thematically, and would give a little more leeway as well as usefulness to a few off-stats (and could reduce the severity of some low-saves). This was one of the things I felt 4E did well on (even if I don't like 4E overall).
I notice when it is something that gives players more power you seem to think it was clearly intentional, but when it is limiting, you seem to think it is poor design.
Strange that.
I disagree. I just don't believe in making up new weaknesses to spite players. There's a rather large difference between what is and what you are trying to imply.
|
|
Let's see.. Spontaneous caster:
Delayed spell-casting progression
Slow metamagic.
Very few spells known."Hey, sorc, you got a new level! Now you know exactly ONE spell of your highest level! But you can use it THREE times per day! ONE more than a Wizard of same level!"
While a prepared caster can simply use a scrolls, wands, pearls of power and divinations. Some of them can also spontaneously cast selected spells. The worst offender being the Spellbinder wizard archetype.
EDIT: Okay, I'm done derailing the thread. Not that I think there is anything else to talk about monks in here...
Master Arminas, Dabbler and Ciretose already presented the class' flaws and lots of possible solutions. Hopefully, the developers take a long and relaxing time off from monk threads and one day come back with a helpful revision.
Lemmy, I'd love you to slide over to the other thread. Even when we disagree you give good input.
And we can continue the sorcerer vs schrodingers wizard in another thread if you like. I don't think it has ever come up before :)
|
|
And they can do that. It is called a houserule, and we all have them.
If in your world, the ladies stand still for a full minute while you give them a speech explaining why they should be attracted to you, knock yourself out.
But maybe since Charisma says it governs personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, you should allow it to do so. Seems the shortest route to the solution is to just use what is written rather than bending something else to fit to get around a low score.
As to jumping rope, would you prefer soccer? Hopscotch perhaps?
And they can do that. It is called a houserule, and we all have them.
If in your world, the ladies stand still for a full minute while you give them a speech explaining why they should be attracted to you, knock yourself out.
Actually, improving their attitude towards you is 1 minute of conversation (not necessarily a speech). Using Diplomacy for more general things takes as little as one round by the actual diplomacy rules.
But maybe since Charisma says it governs personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, you should allow it to do so. Seems the shortest route to the solution is to just use what is written rather than bending something else to fit to get around a low score.
Nobody is bending. It definitely governs all those things. Hence the penalty to all those things if your score is low or the bonus for a positive score. It doesn't mean that it is the only thing that influences your success anymore than melee attack rolls are only Strength checks.
|
|
On the chart. Helpful must have a different meaning to you. In 3.5 it had a very clear meaning. If you would like, we can discuss this in depth in another thread, as we have in the past. I can pull up all the old links, and we can get nostalgic for arguments of yesteryear while we wait for Tels.
I like how when you agree with a rule it is it is implied, but when you don't it is RAW.
Show me where it says diplomacy makes you more attractive? In a new thread of course.
Lemmy, I'd love you to slide over to the other thread. Even when we disagree you give good input.
And we can continue the sorcerer vs schrodingers wizard in another thread if you like. I don't think it has ever come up before :)
What other thread? There are like 200 monk threads floating around, you gotta be more specific.
I don't mind discussing Wizards x Sorcerers... But I can't promise I'll do it tonight, I've had this conversation not long ago I'm quite lazy to recall the arguments and type them down... -.-'
|
|
Lemmy, I'd love you to slide over to the other thread. Even when we disagree you give good input.
And we can continue the sorcerer vs schrodingers wizard in another thread if you like. I don't think it has ever come up before :)
What other thread? There are like 200 monk threads floating around, you gotta be more specific.
I don't mind discussing Wizards x Sorcerers... But I can't promise I'll do it tonight, I've had this conversation not long ago I'm quite lazy to recall the arguments and type them down... -.-'
It's changed a bit since the OP. Dabbler, Krigare, MA and I have all posted builds and some have posted comparison builds with the various fixes proposed to see if we can make a viable monk that can't be made "broken". Feel free to ask questions if any of the builds are unclear, and feel free to break them :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And they can do that. It is called a houserule, and we all have them.
If in your world, the ladies stand still for a full minute while you give them a speech explaining why they should be attracted to you, knock yourself out.
But maybe since Charisma says it governs personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, you should allow it to do so. Seems the shortest route to the solution is to just use what is written rather than bending something else to fit to get around a low score.
Charisma most certainly governs personality, magnetism etc, just as Dexterity governs hand-eye co-ordination, agility etc. This is why they affect your skill modifier, not the DC of the task.
DCs are intended to be pre-existing factors, independent of whoever is attempting to overcome them. As mentioned, things like race, one's dress, or one's behaviour (manifested in skills) can affect the DC, but these are expected to be minor alterations to a pre-existing condition.
The trend in current game design, which is to specify an NPC's starting attitude, reflects this.
|
|
Take it to another thread if you want to have the debate, your paragraph doesn't make any of that appear under diplomacy, nor does it remove what appears under charisma.
Ironically, you are trying to use diplomacy to convince me right now, but I don't think you are flirting.
But we are derailing, so if you would like to continue, let us go elsewhere and I will once again go through the history of DnD from 3.0 through 3.5 to now and how it defined the various areas of the chart and how being diplomatic isn't the same as being charismatic in the same as being able to pick a lock isn't the same as being dexterous, even if being dexterous makes you better at picking a lock and being charismatic makes you better at being diplomatic.
On skills and sexy monks, we run seduction as bluff, not diplomacy. We (groups I've been involved in) have done this for a long time, since it goes back to 3.5.
If a monk has a high bluff, he can seduce the interested easily. He may have to work a flurry of seduction to take down a more resistant opponent.
Bluff isn't on the monk skill list, but there are ways around this.
On charisma and its related skills being more important, it is easy to make them very weighty as a dm. You can have the type of game where these skills are important, or you will get into more combat than is desirable.
We also draw a differentiation between perform (oratory) for large crowds, diplomacy for individual persuasion, one-on-one social combat debates and discussion, and bluff which when not being used in combat for feints, is used for lying, cheating and seduction and baffling npcs with ridiculous stories.
Someone with a fine diplomacy is a diplomat, but not a magnificent rhetorician and rabble rouser. That is perform oratory, where someone like the bard really shines as a natural. You can use diplomacy for oratory, but are pretty much on a -4, as you quickly move from person to person. The orator also has a quicker effect than the diplomat, because the diplomacy rules are very slow (and bluff can sometimes be quite quick). Just some house rules, I've seen monk pcs use bluff and seduction and combat monks that are hopeless in this regard.
Take it to another thread if you want to have the debate, your paragraph doesn't make any of that appear under diplomacy, nor does it remove what appears under charisma.
Ironically, you are trying to use diplomacy to convince me right now, but I don't think you are flirting.
But we are derailing, so if you would like to continue, let us go elsewhere and I will once again go through the history of DnD from 3.0 through 3.5 to now and how it defined the various areas of the chart and how being diplomatic isn't the same as being charismatic in the same as being able to pick a lock isn't the same as being dexterous, even if being dexterous makes you better at picking a lock and being charismatic makes you better at being diplomatic.
I was just stating that I agree with you on what Cha governs, but DCs are not governed by PCs attributes, and nowhere in the rules does it point out Cha as an exception.
But fair enough, I might start a new thread when I get home from work :)
/derail
|
|
Take it to another thread if you want to have the debate, your paragraph doesn't make any of that appear under diplomacy, nor does it remove what appears under charisma.
Ironically, you are trying to use diplomacy to convince me right now, but I don't think you are flirting.
But we are derailing, so if you would like to continue, let us go elsewhere and I will once again go through the history of DnD from 3.0 through 3.5 to now and how it defined the various areas of the chart and how being diplomatic isn't the same as being charismatic in the same as being able to pick a lock isn't the same as being dexterous, even if being dexterous makes you better at picking a lock and being charismatic makes you better at being diplomatic.
I was just stating that I agree with you on what Cha governs, but DCs are not governed by PCs attributes, and nowhere in the rules does it point out Cha as an exception.
But fair enough, I might start a new thread when I get home from work :)
/derail
I was responding above you, you just posted between and got the crossfire.
Sorry for the mixup, look forward to the thread.
Gotcha ;)
It will conclude when it arrives in a new thread. How others view character actions is complete GM discretion.
Why the heck do you incite and start arguments only to tell other people to open a new thread to argue with you? I don't get it. Not that there's anything we'd accomplish by doing so. Most of our feelings and thoughts on the matter have already been addressed here for you to see, so feel free to see them. Or don't. Makes little difference. Perhaps it's a bit cynical, but I fail to see potential productivity by just repeating the same thing to you in another thread (it hasn't worked in the past, and I doubt it will work today or tomorrow).
On skills and sexy monks, we run seduction as bluff, not diplomacy. We (groups I've been involved in) have done this for a long time, since it goes back to 3.5.
If a monk has a high bluff, he can seduce the interested easily. He may have to work a flurry of seduction to take down a more resistant opponent.
Bluff isn't on the monk skill list, but there are ways around this.
On charisma and its related skills being more important, it is easy to make them very weighty as a dm. You can have the type of game where these skills are important, or you will get into more combat than is desirable.
We also draw a differentiation between perform (oratory) for large crowds, diplomacy for individual persuasion, one-on-one social combat debates and discussion, and bluff which when not being used in combat for feints, is used for lying, cheating and seduction and baffling npcs with ridiculous stories.
Someone with a fine diplomacy is a diplomat, but not a magnificent rhetorician and rabble rouser. That is perform oratory, where someone like the bard really shines as a natural. You can use diplomacy for oratory, but are pretty much on a -4, as you quickly move from person to person. The orator also has a quicker effect than the diplomat, because the diplomacy rules are very slow (and bluff can sometimes be quite quick). Just some house rules, I've seen monk pcs use bluff and seduction and combat monks that are hopeless in this regard.
And pretty much all of the above is a great exercise in not only deviating from RAW but flat out making skills do things they don't do, or suggesting that seducing someone is a bluff check (I fail to see how it's a bluff check, as seduction =! deception).
But I don't see Ciretose jumping on Loyalist's back, so I suppose he must be doing something right, eh?
I think that Ciretose is just trolling to try and get the thread locked, since he has already expressed interest in having or desiring the thread to be locked instead of just leaving the thread if he is done with it. At least, this is what I think after reading through the posts.
But this adds a whole new level to monk hate. Apparently if monks (or anyone, but Charisma is the one stat that these martial devotees don't greatly suffer for ignoring) have a low Charisma then it punishes them in some people's games beyond what the rules suggest. Apparently trying to get a monk to be somewhat competent in some games will have the side effect of also ensuring that people treat him badly, begin with poorer attitudes without reason, and so forth. So not only is the monk diminished by the actual rules but they are diminished and punished by some peoples' house rules beyond reasonable levels.
Ashield, you sir, could do with a cup of tea.
If a monk or any char has a low charisma and no ranks in any of the social skills, that is going to bite them in the arse in the games I run. Games where you can choose to diffuse conflicts, get enemies to back down, bring warring sides to the table, etc etc. If you don't have the skills here, you can only fight/use magic/or try something unorthodox. Think about it, no real possibility to persuade, trick, enforce your will in any type of social combat, interview/investigation/court intrigue. What a handicap, and it isn't pure homebrew here. If you are on a -2 to diplomacy you may never do well in a dip check in an entire campaign.
Now someone in the party can take it, or take all of them, "I've got this covered guys" but that means they have a lot of power and potential to be effective and forceful/tricky in rp, and the low charisma with no social skill char does not. If you try to accomplish something socially on your own, you won't be good at it, barring rolls 16-20 (or so).
PC: I know something is up, I try to get the info out of this baker.
Rolls low
DM: yeah the baker doesn't want to cooperate, and is starting to not like your presence.
It is not monk hate, please don't misunderstand me, it is a deeper system problem with playing a combat wombat. Now any low char could say, I'll beef intimidate, I'll ride that. Problem is, people hate you afterwards.
The social checks/social combat can be a really big part of this game. Bluff is social manipulation, getting people to do what you want, so I use bluff. Convincing someone that you are a good person, and should pursue marriage, probably diplomacy.
The high charisma dodgy rogue with high bluff, is great at seduction. The debonair swashbuckler type, skilled at feinting and manipulation, also good at it. It works.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I fail to see in all this is that if you HAVE a bard, why should the monk try to do his job? You don't see the bard stripping down to his jammies and kicking goblins do you?
In the game I play in, it comes as natural to have the bard step forth and do the talking, as having the rogue lead the way in a dungeon that is full of traps, or having the ranger lead them through wilderness.
Everyone does not need to do everything.
I would really respect a bard that did that, to walk in the monk's sandals for a day or two.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashield, you sir, could do with a cup of tea.
If a monk or any char has a low charisma and no ranks in any of the social skills, that is going to bite them in the arse in the games I run. Games where you can choose to diffuse conflicts, get enemies to back down, bring warring sides to the table, etc etc. If you don't have the skills here, you can only fight/use magic/or try something unorthodox. Think about it, no real possibility to persuade, trick, enforce your will in any type of social combat, interview/investigation/court intrigue. What a handicap, and it isn't pure homebrew here. If you are on a -2 to diplomacy you may never do well in a dip check in an entire campaign.
Now someone in the party can take it, or take all of them, "I've got this covered guys" but that means they have a lot of power and potential to be effective and forceful/tricky in rp, and the low charisma with no social skill char does not. If you try to accomplish something socially on your own, you won't be good at it, barring rolls 16-20 (or so).
PC: I know something is up, I try to get the info out of this baker.
Rolls low
DM: yeah the baker doesn't want to cooperate, and it starting to not like your presence.It is not monk hate, please don't misunderstand me, it is a deeper system problem with playing a combat wombat. Now any low char could say, I'll beef intimidate, I'll ride that. Problem is, people hate you afterwards.
The social checks/social combat can be a really big part of this game. Bluff is social manipulation, getting people to do what you want, so I use bluff. Convincing someone that you are a good person, and should pursue marriage, probably diplomacy.
The high charisma dodgy rogue with high bluff, is great at seduction. The debonair swashbuckler type, skilled at feinting and manipulation, also good at it. It works.
Ashiel's not talking about being bad at skill checks, but GMs that make social DCs higher for low Cha PCs by setting the NPC's starting attitude as less friendly, thus doubling (if not tripling) the penalty for having low Cha.
If a PC has a low Cha, their penalty is built into their Diplomacy check - lowering the NPC's attitude before any check is made is just PC bashing and metagaming, and has nothing to do with RAW.
What I fail to see in all this is that if you HAVE a bard, why should the monk try to do his job? You don't see the bard stripping down to his jammies and kicking goblins do you?
In the game I play in, it comes as natural to have the bard step forth and do the talking, as having the rogue lead the way in a dungeon that is full of traps, or having the ranger lead them through wilderness.
Everyone does not need to do everything.
I don't know about your games, but in mine PCs are often splitting up into small groups or going solo while in town or at social events.
I think every PC should get a run at social interaction - maybe not much for those that aren't interested or are no good at it, but at least a little. I mean, everyone's involved in combat, even the one's that aren't awesome at it.
Edit: But that's not to say that I think low Cha PCs with no social skill ranks should've good at it - failure is part of the fun in an RPG, so long as it leads to interesting situations rather than character death. But I don't want the melee PCs in the group I run fiddling with their phones, snoring, or walking off to watch the football every time there's a social encounter. I like to get everyone involved.