|
Charming: Blessed with good looks, you've come to depend on the fact that others find you attractive. You gain a +1 trait bonus when you use Bluff or Diplomacy on a character that is (or could be) sexually attracted to you, and a +1 trait bonus to the save DC of any language-dependent spell you cast on such characters or creatures.
I'm curious. What criteria would you use to determine when the bonus(es) from this trait should be applied?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Player: I've got a 24 diplomacy (25 if they might find me sexually attractive)
(assuming DC 25)
GM 1: They seem unaffected by your charm and decline your request.
GM 2: They seem hesitant at first, but your good looks seem to have won them over.
If the NPC is not clearly defined either answer seems both reasonable and appropriate. No need to further add rules or requirements.
|
|
GM 1: They seem unaffected by your charm and decline your request.
GM 2: They seem hesitant at first, but your good looks seem to have won them over.
If the NPC is not clearly defined either answer seems both reasonable and appropriate. No need to further add rules or requirements.
I'm not really looking for additional rules in order to adjudicate this trait at the table, but rather soliciting opinions from GMs as to the criteria they might use to decide if an NPC could be sexually attracted to a PC with this trait or not.
Your example above, Pirate Rob, is a perfect example of how I would expect the trait to be run at the table, but how did GM 1 and GM 2 arrive at their decisions?
My personal thought (trying to be less restrictive as Secane implied above) is that any sentient creature with the equipment and mindset to be sexually attracted could be sexually attracted. Of course, I can certainly understand a GM more narrowly defining sexual attraction (as Bigdaddyjug seems to do above).
|
For a pretty extreme example:
Salacious the Cleric of Callistria: My dear lovely woman, wouldn’t it be nicer to be “friends” if you know what I’m saying? <with a roll of 29 or 30>
BBEG: I spit in your general direction stupid heathen worshiper! Your ilk make me want to puke!
--OR—
Salacious the Bard: <same thing with a roll of 29 or 30.>
BBEG: Yes, take me back to your place immediately!
I believe that it has been stated by Paizo that, unless otherwise stated, all NPCs are considered to be bisexual.
Oh? I'd very much like to see your proof. This would have quite a large impact on the world of Golarion.
As a GM, I would be fairly lenient as long as the PC didn't somehow expect to squeeze the bonus out of every encounter. I think it would have more role playing opportunities. For example, if the +1 bonus did mean the different between success and failure, I would grant it based on how the PC acted toward the NPC. If he or she were flirtatious, warm and understanding, or otherwise 'winning', it would definitely count. If the PC were an ass and just expected his or her OOC 'charm' statistic to win the day, I'd say no.
Of course, to switch things up, I might just have an NPC turned on by a PC who is mean to him or her.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Andy, first of all, remember that a diplomacy check can only move someone 2 degrees more friendly towards you. So it would never be as extreme as you describe :-)
Graypark, these are the factors I would personally consider:
1) Is the NPC of a type/subtype that would reasonably find the PC attractive? If the PC is a human, I would say it's unlikely that a goblin would find him/her attractive. Usually if it's a standard PC-race, then I would say yes. Note: just because a dwarf does not want a human to be their marriage partner, does not mean they couldn't find them attractive, and respond well to their diplomacy. See Lord of the Rings.
2) Would the NPC culturally be inclined to see the PC as sexually attractive? In general, if the NPC lives in a city and have reasonable exposure to other races, then probably yes. But if the NPC lives in some sort of culture of extreme xenophobia, it might exclude it. But as the previous example, I could see a situation in which the highly insular dwarf, having a culturally conditioned standard of sexual attraction, would NOT find the human PC to be attractive.
3) Does the NPC have some sort of lifestyle choice that would prevent them from finding the PC attractive? As mentioned above, do they have some sort of vow of celibacy?
4) Lastly, sexual orientation. I would actually categorize this into more of a "table reading" deal. What orientation does the PC making the diplomacy check seem to be? How well would your current players respond to this? I had actually not head of the "all npc's are bisexual" comment before, but I can certainly see Paizo saying as such. To be quite honest, that's not how I play my NPCs. They are mostly heterosexual, but not always, as the situation and table requires.
In the end, the vast majority of the time it comes down to what the first reply said. Is it an NPC of the opposite gender...or the gender that the PC seems to be attracted to?
|
As a GM, I would be fairly lenient as long as the PC didn't somehow expect to squeeze the bonus out of every encounter. I think it would have more role playing opportunities. For example, if the +1 bonus did mean the different between success and failure, I would grant it based on how the PC acted toward the NPC. If he or she were flirtatious, warm and understanding, or otherwise 'winning', it would definitely count. If the PC were an ass and just expected his or her OOC 'charm' statistic to win the day, I'd say no.
Of course, to switch things up, I might just have an NPC turned on by a PC who is mean to him or her.
"darlin', you want me to be 'mean' to you? Normally, this costs extra..."
|
|
In the end, the vast majority of the time it comes down to what the first reply said. Is it an NPC of the opposite gender...or the gender that the PC seems to be attracted to?
To actually add constructively to this...
If you think it will add for fun at the table, do whatever you feel is appropriate.
Sometimes having a gruff rebuff is fun.
Sometimes having a paramour possibility is fun.
It comes down to reading the table, the player, and the PC.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I just looked up the quote that I was looking for,and I apologize. James Jacobs said that it was safe to assume that all pregens are bisexual unless clearly stated otherwise. That doesn't apply to all NPCs. This is another area where table variation is bound to occur.
|
|
I just looked up the quote that I was looking for,and I apologize. James Jacobs said that it was safe to assume that all pregens are bisexual unless clearly stated otherwise. That doesn't apply to all NPCs. This is another area where table variation is bound to occur.
Regardless, thanks for taking the time to look for the answer; even if it didn't support your original belief, I appreciate your doing so.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A follow-up thought....
Clearly, Charming is not the best Diplomacy trait out there. There are others that are more powerful - either they give extra bonuses, they are untyped or they add one as a class skill. (Or, in the case of Extremely Fashionable, all three). People take Charming because they want something to roleplay. Therefore, it should be adjudicated as a roleplay question and not a rules question. In the vast majority of cases, it won't matter - but in the rare event that it does and the situation is questionable, the GM should err on the side of giving it to the player as a reward for taking a flavorful choice when more optimal ones are available.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I just looked up the quote that I was looking for,and I apologize. James Jacobs said that it was safe to assume that all pregens are bisexual unless clearly stated otherwise. That doesn't apply to all NPCs. This is another area where table variation is bound to occur.
Good stuff! If the comic is canon at all, then Valeros and Merisel are looking mighty straight ;)
My Cleric of Iomedade has a 18 charisma and the Charming trait. I usually tell the DM "I rolled a 19, 20 if they think I'm sexy!" Since he ends up being the "faceman" in most sessions, I get to say this a lot.
This also plays into why he took the free faction switch from Taldor to the Silver Crusade when it was offered. He got tired of being whored out for the equivalent of a new throw rug for Baron Taco.
|
|
People take Charming because they want something to roleplay.
Some players might take Charming because it increases the DC of certain spells under certain circumstances by 1.
That would be an instance in which a ruling on the NPC's sexual attraction might fall more under the resolution of a rules question as opposed to a role play question.
That extra +1 to the DC of a spell save could be the difference between life and death.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
People take Charming because they want something to roleplay.Some players might take Charming because it increases the DC of certain spells under certain circumstances by 1.
That would be an instance in which a ruling on the NPC's sexual attraction might fall more under the resolution of a rules question as opposed to a role play question.
That extra +1 to the DC of a spell save could be the difference between life and death.
While you might get some guidance as to what certain NPCs orientations are (GLBTS, etc), you aren't going to get that sort of guidance for the common goblin, harpy, human guard, etc etc.
Also, orientation does not equate with attraction. NPC 1 might like dudes, but there's a big difference between finding that dwarven barbarian with a CHA of 5 attractive and that Taldan aristocrat with a CHA of 20 attractive.
So, given all that, I think that getting an official "here's how this works PFS" ruling would be more detrimental than beneficial. Table variation should be in place for a trait like this, I think it makes it more fun and random than just another flat mechanical advantage.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
People take Charming because they want something to roleplay.Some players might take Charming because it increases the DC of certain spells under certain circumstances by 1.
That would be an instance in which a ruling on the NPC's sexual attraction might fall more under the resolution of a rules question as opposed to a role play question.
That extra +1 to the DC of a spell save could be the difference between life and death.
The list of language-dependent spells is laughably short. To my reading, there are only 6 or so that require a saving throw. If someone is taking the trait for that purpose, then they have more important problems than whether or not the target is attracted to them.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Table variation should be in place for a trait like this, I think it makes it more fun and random than just another flat mechanical advantage.Exactly. I couldn't agree more. And I believe this is the consensus, too. Thanks, everyone, for sharing your thoughts and opinions.
Its what the boards are for :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just looked up the quote that I was looking for,and I apologize. James Jacobs said that it was safe to assume that all pregens are bisexual unless clearly stated otherwise. That doesn't apply to all NPCs. This is another area where table variation is bound to occur.
The one time I can think of this being specifically addressed is in Jade Regent, where romancing the named NPCs (if desired) is part of the plot and has defined rules mechanics. All of the romanceable characters are specifically called out as being at least potentially bisexual.
Which is very important as my character's primary goal in that AP is to spend the rest of her life with Ameiko.
|
|
Charming: Blessed with good looks, you've come to depend on the fact that others find you attractive. You gain a +1 trait bonus when you use Bluff or Diplomacy on a character that is (or could be) sexually attracted to you, and a +1 trait bonus to the save DC of any language-dependent spell you cast on such characters or creatures.I'm curious. What criteria would you use to determine when the bonus(es) from this trait should be applied?
It's also worth mentioning that there is a Changeling Race Trait (Green Widow) that has a +2 to Bluff in the same circumstances. I actually have a first level Changeling Sorcerer who has both that *and* Charming, and her Bluff can be +11. (Well, since she's Rakshasa-blooded I can get that up to +16.) She's scary.
Edit: Whoops, just noticed this was the PFS board. So I guess Changeling wouldn't be an issue there after all.
|
|
Charming: Blessed with good looks, you've come to depend on the fact that others find you attractive. You gain a +1 trait bonus when you use Bluff or Diplomacy on a character that is (or could be) sexually attracted to you, and a +1 trait bonus to the save DC of any language-dependent spell you cast on such characters or creatures.I'm curious. What criteria would you use to determine when the bonus(es) from this trait should be applied?It's also worth mentioning that there is a Changeling Race Trait (Green Widow) that has a +2 to Bluff in the same circumstances. I actually have a first level Changeling Sorcerer who has both that *and* Charming, and her Bluff can be +11. (Well, since she's Rakshasa-blooded I can get that up to +16.) She's scary.
Edit: Whoops, just noticed this was the PFS board. So I guess Changeling wouldn't be an issue there after all.
FYI--the bonuses from those two traits do not stack with each other, though you still get +1 Diplo +2 Bluff from having both.
|
|
Just remember: Miss Feathers is only attracted to fighters, barbarians, and half-orcs.
And none of those size-smalls. What am I supposed to do with that? Psh.
Darlin' that's what alter self is for! (isn't it?)
And the spell enlarge... person. You can get some AMAZING results with casting the spell in the ...ah... middle.
|
|
And the spell enlarge... person. You can get some AMAZING results with casting the spell in the ...ah... middle.Shackles have potion do that. But potion make all Shackles big, not just middle. What Shackles do wrong? Shackles think Katisha have lots to teach Shackles.
Shackles, you need to find some oil of enlarge person darling. Potions are so last year~
|
|
FYI--the bonuses from those two traits do not stack with each other, though you still get +1 Diplo +2 Bluff from having both.Charming: Blessed with good looks, you've come to depend on the fact that others find you attractive. You gain a +1 trait bonus when you use Bluff or Diplomacy on a character that is (or could be) sexually attracted to you, and a +1 trait bonus to the save DC of any language-dependent spell you cast on such characters or creatures.I'm curious. What criteria would you use to determine when the bonus(es) from this trait should be applied?It's also worth mentioning that there is a Changeling Race Trait (Green Widow) that has a +2 to Bluff in the same circumstances. I actually have a first level Changeling Sorcerer who has both that *and* Charming, and her Bluff can be +11. (Well, since she's Rakshasa-blooded I can get that up to +16.) She's scary.
Edit: Whoops, just noticed this was the PFS board. So I guess Changeling wouldn't be an issue there after all.
Green Widow is a Racial Bonus, not a Trait Bonus, so they do stack.
And the difference between a Race Trait and a Racial Trait rears its ugly head again. I think I said the wrong one. :)