Charisma is a mental stat; it doesn't reflect appearance in regards to physical deformity but rather how you prominently you carry yourself. Plenty of hideous demons and abominations and undead have sky-high Charisma but have a lot worse than "a hairlip" going for them. Charisma doesn't deal with the quality of your appearance but rather the quantity; whether you're pretty or ugly is quality of your appearance and this is not measured by Charisma. A con-man with sufficient Wisdom may be able to Sense Motive and tell that a person is an easy mark or not, but he's not going to entirely discount the physical capabilities of his mark unless the benefit significantly outweighs the risks. You can't tell how smart someone is merely by looking at them and even if you figure that they're not the brightest crayon in the box, you can't really tell if they've pumped some knowledge or other skill as high as they can to compensate so your "easy mark" may turn out to be hustling you. Lastly, there's no mechanical process given in the rules as to exactly how Charisma would set starting impression of you so even if it's intended to, it doesn't demonstrate what you do to determine it. Ok, high Cha makes you more confident and someone will think more highly of you... but how much more likely? What Cha modifier do you require for them to start at Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly, or Helpful? Is it really realistic to...It's not a penalty for NPCs to react naturally to the appearance and mannerisms of a PC. As you said, roleplay and mechanics aren't mutually exclusive. Shouldn't attributes have some noticeable effect on a PCs appearance or mannerisms? If so, why is it not possible to have NPCs who discriminate against strong or weak characters? Charismatic or not? Graceful or not?
Do skill ranks truly define the character at its core? Does a low Cha character with a hairlip still have a hairlip if he's got 10 ranks in Diplomacy?
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Emphasis mine. If I say my character has low Cha because of a hairlip, what's to stop me? Physical appearance is a component of Charisma. It's not the sole deciding factor. You get to flavor how you want your Charisma to manifest as you see fit. Why do skill ranks make my low ability score essentially disappear? NPCs shouldn't be able to pick someone out of a line-up who appears to be the most confident?
No, you shouldn't have NPCs automatically attacking ugly PCs. Well, unless the NPCs in question are just that discriminatory. Do you normally only consider one aspect when determining initial NPC attitudes? Is it not possible to let Charisma modifiers be a component? Seems silly to say never, to me.
That's another situation in which nobody is getting to make a Diplomacy check so the cha check is fair. It's not a situation in which the magician or rockstar is picking the most attractive people to make a one-minute attempt to impress them, they're just making a snap judgement. I have agreed that this is an appropriate use for a Cha check from my first post.
The problem I'm having is one in which a PC walks up to an NPC and says “I need to talk to you about X,” and whether the NPC is willing to talk to the PC for a minute is dependent on the PC's raw cha score.
I made this example to show a situation in which Cha score might allow or prevent further diplomacy checks. Once you get backstage you now have a minute of that NPC's time.
Most all situations are going to allow you the opportunity to bring the Diplomacy skill to use. Charisma should matter in situations where you can't. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a Cha check to see if you can get the mercenary fighting you to listen to your proposal. If the circumstances were correct.
Everyone seems to worry that there's a double penalty to having a low Charisma score. What they should really worry about is if there is any real benefit to having a high score if not one of three classes.
I usually run groups of four or five players. I'd say a socially incompetent PC shows up maybe every other time. It's more than I would expect, but usually there is some entertainment value. I think it's funny when the players conspire to "hide the barbarian" every time they have to talk to an NPC.
"Why is your parties masterwork diplomacy kit a stick wrapped in leather?"
"They were out of pacifiers"
So all fighters must be dumb? or socially clueless? or completely uneducated? Sorry man, not buying it. This sounds a lot like someone trying to justify a power build to me. Granted, I do not know you and have never sat at the same table with you nor even looked over one of your characters, so that last statement in regards to you *personally* should not be taken in that sense. Just that I've heard a ton of similar arguments from folks that can't understand why starting out at 1st level with a 20 STR and little else an the exception bordering on impossible and not the rule.
You want your 18+2 Human fighter with totally inadequate mental skills at 1st level? Ok, what percentage of the population of the world's 16 year olds are so gifted? One percent? Less than one percent? Roll percentile.
People by their very nature are more multi-faceted than that, 1st level types that can one punch a camel are Schwarzenegger Fallacies.
Just by 2 cents, :)
OH
Why does it matter what percent of the world has these stats? Whatever the number, my character falls in it. Hell, I don't care if the answer is ONE person in the whole world has these stats, I am that one.
Any GM who tries to make me roll percentile to have the character I want is out a player.
Everyone seems to worry that there's a double penalty to having a low Charisma score. What they should really worry about is if there is any real benefit to having a high score if not one of three classes.
The advantage I that if you are a naturally charismatic person, and you work at improving your skills, you'll always be better than a naturally uncharismatic person who puts in the same amount of work.
That's your advantage. That's it. No more. No less.
Time Out for A Sec
I'd like to point out that appearance rarely seems to mean anything in a mechanical sense beyond what is already assumed as part of the usual interactions. Being unremarkable in appearance, ugly, beautiful, or even frightening has no effect on your social rolls or even Charisma in any meaningful way.
We can prove this with things like the Disguise skill, disguise self, alter self, polymorph and so forth. If that was the case then a hat of disguise means that appearances are useless and we can forget about the non existent rules about Cha = Appearance = Starting NPC Attitudes which, again, doesn't exist.
In reality, when someone approaches me, I usually don't absorb their full appearance or make any judgments about them in a matter of a few seconds or instantly anyway. I can't imagine actually knowing someone who was so mentally off as to become instantly more hostile to someone purely at a glance without some very special consideration going on (if I saw a guy in a Klan uniform I'd probably be pretty unfriendly but that has nothing to do with the guy in the uniform but the uniform itself).
Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request. Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work searching for rumors and informants.
Part of the action of influencing an NPC's attitude is the one minute of interaction. It's not that you walk up and stare at them for 10 rounds and then magically make them like you more. It's part of the interaction, and Charisma is already factored into this. If you're not "worth interacting with" as some might say, you've already got a penalty representing your social shortcomings and if you're particularly bad at it then the NPC may even dislike you for annoying them or wasting their time.
Meanwhile, the act of using Diplomacy requires 1 round or less. For example, walking up and asking someone for directions is usually DC 10 (15 base for indifference, -5 for simple advice or directions = DC 10). Most people can walk up and ask for directions by taking 10 on a Diplomacy check. However, people with a poor Charisma have a penalty, so they might get ignored or go unnoticed for various reasons (maybe people are being snobbish, maybe they are forceful enough to get their attention, maybe they are too quiet for fear of upsetting someone, maybe they are shy, whatever). Because they have a -1 through -5.
If they were taking 10, they'd fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail. Until they stepped out of the comfort zone and tried harder, and then they are statistically likely to fail a few times before actually getting someone's attention to give them directions to Professor Clark's Sociology class.
Also initial appearances modifying things means influencing social SKILL CHECKS.
Courtier's Outfit: This outfit includes fancy, tailored clothes in whatever fashion happens to be the current style in the courts of the nobles. Anyone trying to influence nobles or courtiers while wearing street dress will have a hard time of it (–2 penalty on Charisma-based skill checks to influence such individuals). If you wear this outfit without jewelry (costing an additional 50 gp), you look like an out-of-place commoner.
Parade Armor: Most wealthy countries with standing armies have a different uniform for use in showy noncombat situations such as parades, coronation ceremonies, and so on. The appearance of this armor varies by the country of origin and the branch of the military, but still provides some protection in case the soldier needs to fight while in parade dress (for example, the parade armor of the Eagle Knights of Andoran is a blue coat reinforced with light chain, white breeches, and thick blue leather boots).
Benefit: If you’re wearing a country’s parade armor, you gain a +2 circumstance bonus to Diplomacy and Intimidate checks to influence a person from that country.
To support what Kazaan said, we have to remember that Charisma is a MENTAL statistic. Not a physical one. Mental. It's in your head. All of it. It has nothing to do with how you look directly.
Also the word appearance is defined as:
ap·pear·ance
[uh-peer-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public: the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso in Aïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting.
2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect: a table of antique appearance; a man of noble appearance.
3. outward show or seeming; semblance: to avoid the appearance of coveting an honor.
4. Law. the coming into court of either party to a suit or action.
5. appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances: By all appearances, he enjoyed himself.
Most of these indicate not a physical appearance but the ability to project your desired state of being intentionally.
I think a lot of it comes down to how much reflavoring you allow.
Can my Int 7 bard be really smart since he has all those skill points?
Can my Str 8 wizard appear big and musclely?
Can my bastard sword actually be a katana?
Can I have the mechanics of an elf but say my character is some rare woodland creature?
For some, the fluff in the book is the fluff in the book.
For others, it's all just numbers they'll describe as they see fit.
I think a lot of it comes down to how much reflavoring you allow.
Can my Int 7 bard be really smart since he has all those skill points?
Can my Str 8 wizard appear big and musclely?
Can my bastard sword actually be a katana?
Can I have the mechanics of an elf but say my character is some rare woodland creature?For some, the fluff in the book is the fluff in the book.
For others, it's all just numbers they'll describe as they see fit.
Which pretty much comes down, once again, to table variation.
Some GMs prefer to run strictly RAW, to the point of requiring there be an instance-specific example of a rule for any given situation.
Others embrace the idea that the rulebook is just a set of guidelines and isn't intended to cover every specific circumstance, and will retool on-the-fly as needed.
Then you've got situations that fall between the two, where different people will just interpret things different ways, such as saying "this rule seems to cover it closely enough, why make it any more complicated?" or "this text seems to indicate I can do it this way"
Personally, I believe dump stats should be reflected in some kind of penalty/setback in game play (not overly so, but enough to show there's a disadvantage to it). Others may prefer not to do that and to focus on what characters are best at.
It's all table variation. Just do what you feel is right, there's no need to persuade anyone else that what they're doing isn't.
Personally, I believe dump stats should be reflected in some kind of penalty/setback in game play (not overly so, but enough to show there's a disadvantage to it). Others may prefer not to do that and to focus on what characters are best at.
I agree, and fortunately it is. I can't think of an ability score that doesn't penalize you for having lower scores. I mean, having lower scores applies a penalty to everything here:
Melee attack rolls.
Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
Climb and Swim checks.
Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like).
Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and many ranged spell attacks like scorching ray or searing light.
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly.
Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth checks.
Each roll of a Hit Die (though a penalty can never drop a result below 1—that is, a character always gains at least 1 hit point each time he advances in level).
Fortitude saving throws, for resisting poison, disease, and similar threats.
The number of bonus languages your character knows at the start of the game. These are in addition to any starting racial languages and Common. If you have a penalty, you can still read and speak your racial languages unless your Intelligence is lower than 3.
The number of skill points gained each level, though your character always gets at least 1 skill point per level.
Appraise, Craft, Knowledge, Linguistics, and Spellcraft checks.
Will saving throws (for negating the effects of charm person and other spells).
Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive, and Survival checks.
Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes.
|
I made this example to show a situation in which Cha score might allow or prevent further diplomacy checks. Once you get backstage you now have a minute of that NPC's time.
Most all situations are going to allow you the opportunity to bring the Diplomacy skill to use. Charisma should matter in situations where you can't. I wouldn't be opposed to allowing a Cha check to see if you can get the mercenary fighting you to listen to your proposal. If the circumstances were correct.
All right, I'll agree that that would be a rare situation in which you might make a Cha check before making a Diplomacy check, as long as it is treated like a corner case. If you're at a party with the same rock star, for example, you should be able to just make your Diplomacy check.
Everyone seems to worry that there's a double penalty to having a low Charisma score. What they should really worry about is if there is any real benefit to having a high score if not one of three classes.
I agree that charisma is undervalued in the rules. I'd suggest the best way to increase the value of charisma would be to use some of the Ultimate Campaign rules like Relationships or Fame/Infamy, where your initial score depends on your Cha modifier. Or maybe give everyone a free Leadership feat except that your followers/cohort can't be used for combat or item crafting - then you get a set of contacts modified by your Cha score.
Or you could give the high-Cha character more minor RP perks that occur passively - like having a stranger spontaneously buy them a drink - which tie into the idea that the high-Cha character gets more attention when they're not trying. I don't know about your group, but mine enjoys these even if there's no real mechanical advantage.
Now, I don't agree with applying a circumstance penalty to your Charisma score in this situation [Tyrion]. THAT is double jeopardy.
The other poster wasn't suggesting applying a circumstance penalty for being deformed on top of a low cha. The suggestion was that Tyrion isn't actually low cha, he's just a member of a group that is prejudiced against in a particular context, and that that should apply a circumstance modifier. Just like an elf that walks into an orc village would get a circumstance penalty.
While physical attractiveness is definitely part of a cha score, the subjectivity of attractiveness does create situations in which it's hard to measure attractiveness. I'd tend to correlate it more with things that have been shown to be generally attractive to all humans, like symmetry of features, lustrous hair, and clear skin rather than things like race, height, or build, which would provide circumstance modifiers.I suppose something can be said for innate talent vs. learned skill, but I don't really see the need to differentiate between the ways in which a character might have come to have the bonus number on their sheet.
It's not always necessary, but I think it can sometimes lead to interesting, complex characterization and more fun RP – like the low wis character who knows people think they can take advantage of his foolishness, so he's suspicious and has gotten quite good at sniffing out lies (ranks in sense motive), or the low int sorcerer who has spent long hours studying magic (knowledge arcana and spellcraft) so that the wizards won't laugh at him for being uneducated.
So all fighters must be dumb? or socially clueless? or completely uneducated?
No, they're just more likely to be dumb than a wizard, more likely to be socially clueless than a bard, and more likely to be uneducated than either. This is because a character who is dumb or socially clueless is more likely to pursue a martial career than go to wizard/bard school, and because once they make the choice to pursue martial training they will not be exposed to as much academic knowledge as someone who chooses to to wizard/bard school.
To support what Kazaan said, we have to remember that Charisma is a MENTAL statistic. Not a physical one. Mental. It's in your head. All of it. It has nothing to do with how you look directly.
Also the word appearance is defined as:
Most of these indicate not a physical appearance but the ability to project your desired state of being intentionally.ap·pear·ance
[uh-peer-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public: the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso in Aïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting.
2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect: a table of antique appearance; a man of noble appearance.
3. outward show or seeming; semblance: to avoid the appearance of coveting an honor.
4. Law. the coming into court of either party to a suit or action.
5. appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances: By all appearances, he enjoyed himself.
Another thing that springs to mind, when it comes to actual physical appearance, is that a whole lot of a person's looks can be radically altered without too much trouble. There's a reason the plain-looking girl/guy suddenly becoming beautiful with a single makeover is such a common trope in fiction. Like a lot of fiction tropes it's an exaggeration, but there's still an element of truth to it. A visit to the baths, a barber, and a tailor can alter 90% of how a character's looks.
Things like personality and general social skills, on the other hand, are a lot harder to change.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@weirdo
(You and your long posts!)
If I could ask you a question that came up in a different thread on a similiar topic. Is there a difference between intelligent and educated? If my low Int character (whatever number you consider low) has a lot of skill points because he is a human bard, and he plows them into knowledge skills, is he smart or educated? If I have a high Int score but I put my skill points in physical skills, is he still smart?
To follow up, if I have low Cha but high diplomacy, am I charismatic?
|
|
This is out of left field......
A change I would make to reduce the likely hood of people using dump stats is....
Fort= average of str and con
Reflex=average of dex and int
Will= average of cha and wis
Most people will hate this but it makes more since for saving throws to be governed by 2 stats, at least it does to me.
This is out of left field......
A change I would make to reduce the likely hood of people using dump stats is....
Fort= average of str and con
Reflex=average of dex and int
Will= average of cha and wisMost people will hate this but it makes more since for saving throws to be governed by 2 stats, at least it does to me.
It would make all the casters wickedly gleeful when pumping their spell save DCs, that's for sure.
IMHO, I think it should be best off. Makes characters way less MAD and gives the martials a serious break when it comes to prioritizing their stats. It's very hard for those who understand the game to make a character that's outside the usually suspected scores when you need 3 specific scores to survive better.
For example, a Fighter gets about the same benefit from Wisdom vs Charisma until you realize that Wisdom applies to Will saves, which means that the fighter is basically shooting himself in the foot by taking more Charisma over Wisdom because it means he's going to be some succubi's b%%!@ minion, or spending long hours on the beach sleeping his ass off while the party is fighting for their lives.
To support what Kazaan said, we have to remember that Charisma is a MENTAL statistic. Not a physical one. Mental. It's in your head. All of it. It has nothing to do with how you look directly.
Also the word appearance is defined as:
Most of these indicate not a physical appearance but the ability to project your desired state of being intentionally.ap·pear·ance
[uh-peer-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public: the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso in Aïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting.
2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect: a table of antique appearance; a man of noble appearance.
3. outward show or seeming; semblance: to avoid the appearance of coveting an honor.
4. Law. the coming into court of either party to a suit or action.
5. appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances: By all appearances, he enjoyed himself.
Actually, based on their cited examples most of these fit physical appearance quite nicely.
1- To appear to the eye or mind, or before the pulic, such as a stockholder's meeting. You have physically made yourself present to be seen or interacted with. If you called in via phone, nobody would say you "made an appearance."
2- The state, condition, or style; outward look. The table looked antique. The table did not project its state of being by acting antique and speaking in Olde Tyme English. I put the table in my immediate center of view and it physically appeared old.
5- This example can be argued for both sides, as "He appeared to enjoy himself" would encompass as much physical (smiling, laughing) as it would emotional presentation (convincingly smiling and laughing when you're really not having fun).
Ignoring #4 as a legal term doesn't really seem to fit either side of the argument, so we end up with (debatably) 50/50 for all examples.
In my opinion, it all boils down to whether or not you come to the table wanting a roleplaying game or a tactical boardgame.
Bonuses and penalties are a mechanical function, but also represent the realities of that character. An INT 7 rogue is going to have fewer skill points, and penalties to Int skills because he's less intelligent and less receptive to new information than an above-average Int 12 character.
It is not at all unreasonable for a GM to expect your character to reflect his or her penalties. Now, I'm not saying every int 7 character has to be Gomer Pyle. Maybe the other party members just have to explain "the plan" more than once for him/her to finally "get" the whole thing. But penalties should reflect more than just raw numbers, because it's the role you have chosen for yourself as an actor.
On the other hand, if you just want a tactical combat boardgame with an interesting story in between... go nuts. Who cares if you have 3 INT and 25 STR? The idea is to kill monsters and win the game.
|
So we have one group ignoring that the book says "Checks that represent attempts to influence others" in a line directly below (and therefore separate from) the list of skills it applies to.
And now also arguing "appearance" is mental, and therefore can't be seen.
Yeah...strong case you all have going there...
|
|
Let's destroy this whole double jeopardy argument here and now.
It is not "double jeopardy" when you fail an acrobatics check and need to make a reflex save, even though both are from Dex. Nor is it "double jeopardy" if you fail an tumble check and your armor class is involved in dodging the attack.
It is not "double jeopardy" when you both increase your attack bonus and damage using strength. Nor is it double jeopardy when your climb check is effected by your encumbrance.
It is not "Double Jeopardy" when you fail a perception check and therefore must make a will save, both modified by wisdom. Nor is is double jeopardy when you sense someones motives are evil and cast a spell with the save DC based on your wisdom score.
It is not "Double Jeopardy" when you fail a fort save and take hit point damage, both modified by Con.
And it is not double jeopardy when your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance has an effect on NPC's in the game, and then you use a skill on them.
Unless you want to argue that using a bonus skill point from intelligence on a your bonus language is double jeopardy, because you already get bonus languages from intelligence...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, it all boils down to whether or not you come to the table wanting a roleplaying game or a tactical boardgame.
Opinions can be wrong. This is a pretty good candidate. Lumping people into extreme groups is rarely very accurate and I feel the same is true here. Again, Charisma is a mental statistic, and a character is defined by what they do.
Due to the way the mechanics work for example, if you want a character who grew up sheltered and under educated then you might represent that with a 7 Intelligence. But why would you represent it with a 7 Intelligence?
Because the 7 Intelligence gives -2 skill points (representing that you never learned as many practical skills during your youth and now everyone else has a head start on you).
Likewise, the 7 Intelligence means that you frequently miss common questions. Most people can take 10 and answer basic questions in any knowledge skill (Knowledge can be used untrained for up to DC 10), but your character may simply not know.
Character #1: "We'll need to speak to Sir Manfred Firestride and try to get his blessing on this if we want to remain inside the law on this job."
You: "Sir who?"
Character #3: "Sir Manfred Firestride, the lord of this land? Your land? Do you seriously not know the lord of your own land? Were you raised in a barn?"
You: "Um...a convent, actually."
Character #4: "Don't they like, teach people stuff in places like that?"
You: "Well, I know how to write in a lot of really interesting ways or make perfect copies of documents and books, learned a lot about medicinal arts, learned several languages including the celestial tongue of angels, and I'm pretty good at gardening."
Character #1: "But...you don't know the name of your landlord?"
You: "It never came up."
Character #3: "Hah, check this kid out."
^ The above shows a character that cannot take 10 on the Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty) or even Knowledge (Local) and succeed on a common DC to tell you much about the world outside of the small area he grew up in segregated from the rest of the world. The character invested what skill points he or she did have into Heal, Linguistics, Knowledge (Religion), and has a decent Wisdom score which gives enough of a bonus to Profession (Gardener) that he's got a green thumb (but isn't professional quality).
He's not stupid. But he either didn't have the opportunity to learn all that most people do, or didn't apply himself readily enough. Both are things that a lower Intelligence can represent mechanically without representing actual stupidity.
In another thread I made a long time ago I used an example of a Fighter with a low Charisma score. In this example the goal was to have a character grow as a person and reach what we wanted for the character over the course of the game.
We began with a fighter who was used to dealing with combat things. Military-style training, really interacted mostly with his mentor or fellow trainees (who also had lower than average Charismas) and felt right at home with them (notice that people with the same Charisma score have the same % of success with each other regardless of how high or low it is). He was a bit rough and uncut like a raw gem. A handsome sort but not one that was particularly gifted at dealing with most non-warrior folk.
However over the course of his level career (and very early on in fact) his experience teaches him to be more comfortable around other people, filter what he says (while the guys at the barracks probably love that dirty joke you heard recently, Ms. Ranna's Kindergarden class might not be the right audience) and how to be more assertive without coming off as overbearing. In another old thread, I used Sigfried as an example once again.
Example: Bard with an 18 Charisma walks into a bar. He spots this fine half-elven lass who's playing a flute, and decides he wants to talk to her, impress her, then woo her. He doesn't have Diplomacy, so he's going on his raw natural ability.
She's indifferent 'cause she's not a jerk and she just doesn't know him. He walks up and tries to make a good first impression with a little talking, and rolls 1d20+4, resulting in a 13 (DC 15). Ok, still indifferent. So he talks with her a while, and then decides he's going to try the pickup line, "Hey baby, I got another flute you can play in my room." and rolls his 1d20+4 again, and gets an 18, but she's not a girl who's into one night stands (+5 for complicated/lengthy aid) or perhaps she's worried about garnering a negative reputation for herself (+10 for dangerous aid), setting the DC at 20. Oops, bard biffed it. He's cute and all, but she's not into it. She probably laughs at him or tells him he's barking up the wrong tree. Further requests apply a cumulative +5 DC penalty, and may result in her becoming irritated.
Sigfried the Fairly Handsome comes into the room. Now Sigfried is something of a local hero and has reached 7th level. He started out as something of a gruff warrior, and had little to talk about rather than swords and combat training, and has a 7 charisma. However, he's gotten pretty good at relating to people, especially having been traveling with his friends so much. He now has a +7 Diplomacy, because he's invested seven ranks and a masterwork suit (+2 Diplomacy).
He sees the same half-elven lass playing the flute, and a rather disappointed bard walking off. He comes up and strikes up a conversation. He takes 10 and gets a 17, making a good first impression with a kind word and a sharp look. He listens to what she says for a while, and has a conversation with her. After a bit, he too gets a bit forward, and casually mentions that he'd love to continue their discussion in his room after dinner. 1d20+7 and he banks a 23, beating the DC 20, and Sigfried has some pillow talk later that evening.
Part of the reason Sigfried has a 7 Charisma is both mechanical and due to roleplaying. As others have pointed out, ability scores match classes due to what those classes emphasize. Further, it fleshed him out a bit more and defined certain things about him.
1: He will never (without magical assistance) be able to use specialty magic items without training (his UMD check is -2, which means he cannot activate magic items even with a roll of 20).
2: He is not good at lying. We don't want him to be. He's not a liar. In fact, he's pretty terrible at it and doesn't believe in it anyway.
3: While his social interaction (Diplomacy) is not great at the beginning of his adventure it is suitable for his day to day routine (hanging out with other people with low Charisma scores) and only comes up when he's "in public". However, we invest learning into this skill as he grows and he goes from a bit socially awkward to quite charming. A core part of his concept.
All of this adds into who the character is.
He is not #, #, #, #, #, #, he is Sigfried.
|
|
And this is why dump stats are so prevalent. The penalties are in effect minimalized also. It is one facet of games design that runs contrary to the spirit of how many wish to play, not without weaknesses but not with a party of characters with mostly the same weakness.
In some games where people creatively find ways to avoid penalties.
Like claiming appearance is mental and can't be seen, or that lines in rule books directly below the line referencing skills, are only about skills...
|
|
Am I the only person that remembers that the dude has a gigantic scar running across his freaking face?
Scars can be attractive. Heck, I'd give someone with a prominent scar a bonus for interacting with some cultures, like orcs.
@weirdo
(You and your long posts!)
I'm sorry, I can't keep up with this thread so I try to cover 2 pages of discussion in a post. XP
If I could ask you a question that came up in a different thread on a similiar topic. Is there a difference between intelligent and educated? If my low Int character (whatever number you consider low) has a lot of skill points because he is a human bard, and he plows them into knowledge skills, is he smart or educated? If I have a high Int score but I put my skill points in physical skills, is he still smart?
To follow up, if I have low Cha but high diplomacy, am I charismatic?
I think I was on that other thread. No, a low-int bard with lots of knowledge skills is not smart, because "smart" refers to innate talent. However, he is educated and specifically he is knowledgeable. Moreover, people who see him in a limited context might think he's smart because he knows a lot of facts - at least until they try to share complex plans with him, or observe him making obvious logical fallacies.
Similarly, a character with low cha but high diplomacy is not charismatic, he is a good negotiator. Someone who sees him negotiate might mistake him for a charismatic person, but someone who is observant and precise will see that he doesn't naturally draw people in when he isn't actively winning them over through conversation.
(I expect there are a number of politicians that are more socially skilled than they are actually charismatic - Canadian PM Harper comes to mind.)
@Ashiel - interesting idea with representing lack of worldly knowledge to Int, but I prefer to keep Int separate from education and simply voluntarily RP ignorance about certain things that fit the character concept.
|
|
Similarly, a character with low cha but high diplomacy is not charismatic, he is a good negotiator. Someone who sees him negotiate might mistake him for a charismatic person, but someone who is observant and precise will see that he doesn't naturally draw people in when he isn't actively winning them over through conversation.
We agree fundamentally with each other in this paragraph, where is the disconnect?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is why dump stats are so prevalent. The penalties are in effect minimalized also. It is one facet of games design that runs contrary to the spirit of how many wish to play, not without weaknesses but not with a party of characters with mostly the same weakness.
and this isn't a bad thing. Some degree of min maxing is inevitable unless you want everyone to be exactly the same.
|
|
And this is why dump stats are so prevalent. The penalties are in effect minimalized also. It is one facet of games design that runs contrary to the spirit of how many wish to play, not without weaknesses but not with a party of characters with mostly the same weakness.and this isn't a bad thing. Some degree of min maxing is inevitable unless you want everyone to be exactly the same.
Which is fine, unless you are arguing that you don't have to deal with the min along with your max...or remove the penalties and make everyone the same
Let's destroy this whole double jeopardy argument here and now.
It is not "double jeopardy" when you fail an acrobatics check and need to make a reflex save, even though both are from Dex. Nor is it "double jeopardy" if you fail an tumble check and your armor class is involved in dodging the attack.
It is not "double jeopardy" when you both increase your attack bonus and damage using strength. Nor is it double jeopardy when your climb check is effected by your encumbrance.
It is not "Double Jeopardy" when you fail a perception check and therefore must make a will save, both modified by wisdom. Nor is is double jeopardy when you sense someones motives are evil and cast a spell with the save DC based on your wisdom score.
It is not "Double Jeopardy" when you fail a fort save and take hit point damage, both modified by Con.
And it is not double jeopardy when your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance has an effect on NPC's in the game, and then you use a skill on them.
Unless you want to argue that using a bonus skill point from intelligence on a your bonus language is double jeopardy, because you already get bonus languages from intelligence...
No.
Just....no.
What you are proposing (and it is a proposal, being that is has no grounding in the RAW), is directly analogous to giving someone an Acrobatics check where the DC is set by a Dexterity check.
That is what you're talking about.
The Acrobatics/Reflex rolls are not double jeopardy because they are two different things, with DCs independent of one another. They happen to use the same ability modifier.
Attack/damage rolls are also two different things: a roll whose "DC" is wholly independent of the attacker (the defender's AC) and a roll that isn't even a d20.
Failing a Perception check is a skill check. Failing a Will save because...you failed to notice something? I'm not even sure how you can think those are connected.
Fort save is a d20 roll. Hit point damage, again, is not. They are independent of each other.
---
None of the examples you provided indicate either one roll using the same penalty twice, or one roll whose DC is set by a roll using the same ability modifier.
That's what everyone is talking about when they say double jeopardy.
Except he is saying there is a DC to get someone's attention and then a diplomacy check to change their attitude. Two different things. Two different checks.
(At least that's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, Ciretose.)
Except he is saying there is a DC to get someone's attention and then a diplomacy check to change their attitude. Two different things. Two different checks.
(At least that's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, Ciretose.)
I believe he's been saying one roll (Diplomacy), whose DC (starting attitude) is set by a Charisma check. Both using the Charisma modifier.
Although I could be wrong. It's been hard to get a straight answer on how he actually thinks this is supposed to be implemented.
|
|
What you are proposing (and it is a proposal, being that is has no grounding in the RAW), is directly analogous to giving someone an Acrobatics check where the DC is set by a Dexterity check.
The skill check and the charisma check are two different things.
They are listed separately, in the same section, in the book.
It doesn't get any more RAW that that.
They are two different things.
A physical deformity may be a focal point for low confidence, but it isn't the cause; a low-Cha person has low-Cha whether they have the deformity or not. The presence of the deformity merely provides a convenient target about which to be self-conscious; lacking this, you'd be self-conscious about something more mundane like your hair being straight rather than curly or curly rather than straight or some other arbitrary fault that you find in yourself. A person with high Cha will have high Cha also regardless of the deformity. He'll carry himself differently. Abraham Lincoln was, by all accounts, ugly. He was lanky and had warts. But he was highly charismatic; he had great confidence and force of personality. As I've said before, having high Charisma doesn't make you beautiful because that's a quality value and Charisma is a numeric quantifier. It isn't the quality of your appearance, but the quantity of it. How much appearance do you have; and higher doesn't equal beautiful any more than lower equals ugly. If someone would find you pretty, then having high charisma means they'll find you very pretty and would have a hard time looking away; you're a knockout. Having low charisma means they just find you a little bit pretty but hardly a show-stopper. If...Emphasis mine. If I say my character has low Cha because of a hairlip, what's to stop me? Physical appearance is a component of Charisma. It's not the sole deciding factor. You get to flavor how you want your Charisma to manifest as you see fit. Why do skill ranks make my low ability score essentially disappear? NPCs shouldn't be able to pick someone out of a line-up who appears to be the most confident?
No, you shouldn't have NPCs automatically attacking ugly PCs. Well, unless the NPCs in question are just that discriminatory. Do you normally only consider one aspect when determining initial NPC attitudes? Is it not possible to let Charisma modifiers be a component? Seems silly to say never, to me.
That's great and all. I'm fine with Charisma being a mental stat. It is. However, physical appearance can be a factor. Why else would physical afflictions cause Charisma damage?
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/achievement-feats/history-of-scars-achievemen t
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/lamashtu-s-mark
ap·pear·ance
[uh-peer-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public: the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso in Aïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting.
2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect: a table of antique appearance; a man of noble appearance.
3. outward show or seeming; semblance: to avoid the appearance of coveting an honor.
4. Law. the coming into court of either party to a suit or action.
5. appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances: By all appearances, he enjoyed himself.
I disagree with your interpretation of the definition.
No matter how you define it. Appearance means something detectable, correct? For most intents and purposes, Charisma is a social stat. Modifiers in it do you no good if no one can notice your high or low Charisma. I don't care if you flavor your character as being mopey or surly or with a skeevy look. It just must be noticeable. More-so than just a dreery architecture of the soul.
Except he is saying there is a DC to get someone's attention and then a diplomacy check to change their attitude. Two different things. Two different checks.
(At least that's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, Ciretose.)
I believe he's been saying one roll (Diplomacy), whose DC (starting attitude) is set by a Charisma check. Both using the Charisma modifier.
Although I could be wrong. It's been hard to get a straight answer on how he actually thinks this is supposed to be implemented.
What I have read, he is saying that using diplomacy to change someone's attitude takes one full minute. He then uses a character's charisma score and any circumstances that would modify it to determine if the NPC would be willing to give that person a full minute of their time.
(Again, correct me if I'm wrong)
What you are proposing (and it is a proposal, being that is has no grounding in the RAW), is directly analogous to giving someone an Acrobatics check where the DC is set by a Dexterity check.
The skill check and the charisma check are two different things.
They are listed separately, in the same section, in the book.
It doesn't get any more RAW that that.
They are two different things.
Except that you are proposing that the Charisma check is used to set starting attitude, correct?
|
|
Except he is saying there is a DC to get someone's attention and then a diplomacy check to change their attitude. Two different things. Two different checks.
(At least that's my understanding. Correct me if I'm wrong, Ciretose.)
I believe he's been saying one roll (Diplomacy), whose DC (starting attitude) is set by a Charisma check. Both using the Charisma modifier.
Although I could be wrong. It's been hard to get a straight answer on how he actually thinks this is supposed to be implemented.
I'm saying diplomacy (or any of the other skills) have nothing to do with setting starting attitude. Circumstance is the primary determination of starting attitude, and reasonable the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of someone would effect your starting attitude toward them.
I am further saying that skills do exactly what they say they do. If someone is indifferent, you can ask them to do something using diplomacy. If not, you need a full minute of interaction to use diplomacy to change the starting attitude. And then, it is still only for 1d4 hours, etc,etc...or following the list of limitations and restrictions involved with diplomacy, or whatever skill used.
Okay, so a character enters a bar looking to talk to someone.
What is the difference between someone with 18 charisma entering and someone with 6 charisma entering?
How do you set the starting attitude?
It's very hard to have what is essentially a rules discussion with you when you refuse to get into specifics.
Anyway, there's still this:
Attitude: Much like the starting attitude of an NPC, the target kingdom's initial attitude toward you is indifferent, though the GM may modify this based on alignment differences, your shared history, culture, warfare, espionage, racial tensions, and other factors in the campaign world. These factors may also influence the Diplomacy DC for using this edict (generally increasing the DC by 5 for every attitude step worse than helpful).[/b]
Which, in describing the setting of a starting attitude of an NPC, does not include any of the things you just mentioned.
|
|
Okay, so a character enters a bar looking to talk to someone.
What is the difference between someone with 18 charisma entering and someone with 6 charisma entering?
You seem to be arguing there is no difference. I am arguing there is.
As to the ultimate combat, since kingdoms don't have personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and "appearance" in the same way that PC's do, it isn't surprising that they aren't listed as factors to consider with starting attitude toward kingdoms.
PC's on the other hand do.
You seem to be arguing that when the 6 charisma character and the 18 charisma character walk into the bar, no one will notice any difference between someone notably uncharismatic (outside of dwarven culture) and someone remarkably charismatic.
I'm not saying the barkeep will be unfriendly to the 6 charisma character if there are no other factors. In fact, the barkeep would probably start off as helpful, given he is a service provider and they may have coin.
What I am saying is that the bartender, and everyone else at the bar, will notice that one of them is very charismatic and the other one is notably uncharismatic. And reasonably, this will effect interactions.
The bartender will almost certainly be open for a full minute conversation (assuming it isn't really busy). That is his job, after all.
The other people at the bar...maybe, maybe not...although if someone with an 18 charisma wanted to chat...why that seems like someone who is interesting. I might put down my beer and give them a minute of my time to hear the sales pitch.
Or, for intimidate, I might give that person a minute because they seem like someone you don't want to ignore.
Going back to the Booth Babe analogy, they get paid to attract people to the booth so that someone can make a sales pitch. If they aren't drawn to the booth, all the skill in the world means nothing.
This isn't about punishing the 6 charisma guy. No one is saying they will be mean to the 6 charisma guy.
This is asking why they are not acknowledging the 18 charisma guy has an 18 charisma? Why the don't notice 18 Charisma worth of personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Why wouldn't that be considered, prior to any separate (and it would be separate) application of a skill?
...
So, that's a negative on giving me any kind of specifics, then.
Because up to this point, you've been claiming that a single line in the rules gives you the power to impose Charisma checks at will. But you've not said what those checks would be, what the DC should be, the results of success or failure, etc.
Which makes it very unconvincing when you swear up and down that it's RAW, but can't or won't say how the rule actually works.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are not ignoring the text in the rules, we think your interpretation of that text is wrong.
In some games where people creatively find ways to avoid penalties.
Like claiming appearance is mental and can't be seen, or that lines in rule books directly below the line referencing skills, are only about skills...
Several non-skill charisma checks made to influence people have been mentioned. Your failure to take those into account suggests either you are ignoring your opponents' position or intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way it is making it very difficult to engage in rational discussion with you.
Similarly, a character with low cha but high diplomacy is not charismatic, he is a good negotiator. Someone who sees him negotiate might mistake him for a charismatic person, but someone who is observant and precise will see that he doesn't naturally draw people in when he isn't actively winning them over through conversation.We agree fundamentally with each other in this paragraph, where is the disconnect?
On one single point: you have stated that a low cha character who chooses to win someone over (with a one-minute diplomacy check to influence attitude) should have a harder time doing so than a high-cha character on top of the normal penalty to diplomacy because an NPC is less likely to give a low-cha character a full minute to talk.
The skill check and the charisma check are two different things.
They are listed separately, in the same section, in the book.
It doesn't get any more RAW that that.
They are two different things.
If they are two different things, they should be used in two different situations, for two different tasks.
I'm saying diplomacy (or any of the other skills) have nothing to do with setting starting attitude. Circumstance is the primary determination of starting attitude, and reasonable the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of someone would effect your starting attitude toward them.
Except that starting attitude affects the DC of any Diplomacy checks you choose to make. So redward is correct that:
What you are proposing (and it is a proposal, being that is has no grounding in the RAW), is directly analogous to giving someone an Acrobatics check where the DC is set by a Dexterity check.
The DC of your Diplomacy check is set by the Cha check to determine initial attitude. If the Cha check says the bartender is friendly, your Diplomacy check has a DC of 10+Cha+Request Modifier, whereas if the Cha check says the bartender is only indifferent, your Diplomacy check has a DC of 15+Cha+Request Modifier.
The bartender will almost certainly be open for a full minute conversation (assuming it isn't really busy). That is his job, after all.
The other people at the bar...maybe, maybe not...although if someone with an 18 charisma wanted to chat...why that seems like someone who is interesting. I might put down my beer and give them a minute of my time to hear the sales pitch.
Which is again saying that in a normal, low-pressure social situation you would allow a high-Cha person to attempt a check that a low-Cha person would not be allowed to attempt.
Whereas my position is more along the lines of: the people in the bar are more likely to independently approach the high-Cha character and ask him/her to join them for a drink, but if both the high-Cha and low-Cha character walk up to the table, they should get the same Diplomacy check.Going back to the Booth Babe analogy, they get paid to attract people to the booth so that someone can make a sales pitch. If they aren't drawn to the booth, all the skill in the world means nothing.
Which again ties into the idea that people are more likely to independently approach a high-cha person. Not that a high-cha person who has never had a speaking class is better at making an elevator pitch than a low-cha person who has an MBA and works in advertising.
Opinions can be wrong. This is a pretty good candidate. Lumping people into extreme groups is rarely very accurate and I feel the same is true here. Again, Charisma is a mental statistic, and a character is defined by what they do.
You are absolutely correct, as far as opinions go. Everyone has one, and they'll all be different.
However, I'm not sure of your meaning of lumping people into "extreme groups." If you come to the table and claim to be wanting to roleplay, but then intentionally create a character with below-average intelligence... why would expecting that player's in-game persona to react as though they had below-average intelligence qualify as an extreme grouping?
Due to the way the mechanics work for example, if you want a character who grew up sheltered and under educated then you might represent that with a 7 Intelligence. But why would you represent it with a 7 Intelligence?
Because the 7 Intelligence gives -2 skill points (representing that you never learned as many practical skills during your youth and now everyone else has a head start on you).
Likewise, the 7 Intelligence means that you frequently miss common questions. Most people can take 10 and answer basic questions in any knowledge skill (Knowledge can be used untrained for up to DC 10), but your character may simply not know.
Character #1: "We'll need to speak to Sir Manfred Firestride and try to get his blessing on this if we want to remain inside the law on this job."
You: "Sir who?"
Character #3: "Sir Manfred Firestride, the lord of this land? Your land? Do you seriously not know the lord of your own land? Were you raised in a barn?"
You: "Um...a convent, actually."
Character #4: "Don't they like, teach people stuff in places like that?"
You: "Well, I know how to write in a lot of really interesting ways or make perfect copies of documents and books, learned a lot about medicinal arts, learned several languages including the celestial tongue of angels, and I'm pretty good at gardening."
Character #1: "But...you don't know the name of your landlord?"
You: "It never came up."
Character #3: "Hah, check this kid out."
^ The above shows a character that cannot take 10 on the Knowledge (Nobility & Royalty) or even Knowledge (Local) and succeed on a common DC to tell you much about the world...
Again, this above example seems an awful lot like roleplaying your character's flaws to me, especially the parts where you explain the character's background to give context to his low intelligence (i.e., not knowing things others might consider common knowledge). It actually seems like a pretty solid example of how a character's role in the game can shine through because of a negative stat. I like it.
But your argument in this case is rather contrary to the original poster. His complaint was that people take a -7 in a dump stat, but then expect that their character should be able to come up with complex solutions or creative answers because of foreknowledge by the player. Your example doesn't really fit that case, though I do understand the point you are making.
Keep in mind, in case I haven't made myself clear, I am not advocating some sort of "automatic failure" because the character created a dump stat. However, I can fully justify some mild penalties to the character that might be appropriate. If your Int 7 fighter is attempting to singlehandedly crack a complicated cypher or old riddle, you might set the DC slightly higher than a knowledge-based character might face, in addition to his natural Int penalty. I agree that nothing should penalize a character to uselessness. But (again, opinions) I also don't see a problem with challenging a character's chosen flaws as much as their chosen strengths.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
However, I'm not sure of your meaning of lumping people into "extreme groups." If you come to the table and claim to be wanting to roleplay, but then intentionally create a character with below-average intelligence... why would expecting that player's in-game persona to react as though they had below-average intelligence qualify as an extreme grouping?
It seemed like an extreme grouping to me because you said "roleplaying" or "tactical wargame", but the nature of D&D and many tabletop RPGs afterwards are in fact both. Splitting people into two camps is often asking for troubles. There's a lot of gray area between those. For example, I myself am an avid roleplayer who puts a lot of detail in my characters, my NPCs, etc. I'm also something of a gygaxian simulationist where I want my dungeons and places in the world to seemingly make sense and take things like ecology and circumstances into consideration when designing adventures. Finally, I love the tactical aspects of the game as well and building exciting encounters and viable successful characters from a mechanical perspective.
In essence, I fall into BOTH of those categories, and as such it seems strange to me to lump people into either-or.
Again, this above example seems an awful lot like roleplaying your character's flaws to me, especially the parts where you explain the character's background to give context to his low intelligence (i.e., not knowing things others might consider common knowledge). It actually seems like a pretty solid example of how a character's role in the game can shine through because of a negative stat. I like it.
Firstly, let me say thank you.
I also believe in roleplaying your flaws but only so far as it actually matters in game, and I believe that it is the right of the creator of the character to explain how their statistics model their character. There's no reason to make things doubly hard on a character because their statistic is lower, nor make it easier because it is higher, beyond what the ability modifier already calls for.
Which is the problem a lot of people are referring to. The Charisma ability score is already taken into account with social interaction. Meanwhile some are suggesting that the score itself somehow influences the starting attitude of the NPCs and/or their willingness to be interacted with in the first place. The problem is not only is none of this found anywhere in the rules it is creating a double-penalty for Charisma because you're already penalized by having a lower Charisma when you actually have to make your social checks.
Let me use the example you did for a moment.
If your Int 7 fighter is attempting to singlehandedly crack a complicated cypher or old riddle, you might set the DC slightly higher than a knowledge-based character might face, in addition to his natural Int penalty
This rubs me seriously the wrong way. The fighter already has a -2 to Linguistics (the skill used to crack a complicated cypher, usually DC 25-30). Meanwhile a character with a bonus equivalent to his penalty has a +2 to Linguistics (a net result of a 20% difference in success chances). The fighter is already penalized. But saying "oh, you're dumb and unlikely to make this, so the DC is now 5 points harder" is stupid. Just as stupid as saying "Oh, you're +2 smarter, so I'm going to lower the DC by 5 because it's easier for you".
THAT'S WHAT THE BONUS/PENALTY ALREADY MEANS. Right? O.o
It already IS easier for the guy with the higher score, and harder for the guy with the lower score. Now if the 7 Intelligence Fighter invested ranks into Linguistics, then he should be able to try. He's already dealing with the -2, and probably the lack of it as a class skill on top of that. But he preservers and invests enough of himself into it that he gets a +10 check so he could try to crack the code with a 5% chance of success. He could keep trying until he cracks it. He has earned this through his investment.
What is being proposed it to say "Oh, well you're extra dumb, so I arbitrarily increased the DC by 5 from 30 to 35. Now you can't make it, because I'm penalizing you for being penalized".
See the problem? I'd walk from a game where I saw a GM do this, even if it wasn't to my character because it shows a gross lack of understanding of the system, and if I can't trust the GM to get this right, I have little hope of them making good decisions about more complex things like encounters or adjudicating complex effects.
I agree that nothing should penalize a character to uselessness. But (again, opinions) I also don't see a problem with challenging a character's chosen flaws as much as their chosen strengths.
And that's entirely reasonable. Flaws are flaws, but making new weaknesses to exploit is bad play. As an example, I've no issues with including monsters that deal strength damage or tracking encumbrance in an adventure that includes a halfling wizard with a low strength score, nor do I have an issue with asking the party's 7 Charisma Ranger for Bluff and Diplomacy checks when he is trying to interact with people or enforcing the Charisma penalty if he decides he wants to take Leadership or similar.
The thing is, I also am not going to make up rules to spite the wizard for having a low strength or make him randomly test vs getting fatigued for being so weak, nor am I going to make people dislike the ranger on sight or make the DCs for his interactions harder than they would be for any other character. Those things are already accounted for in the rules.
And I am surely, most definitely, never on my reputation as a gamer, going to sink so incredibly low as to, ever, try to stare down other players about how something I just made up out of no where is the RAW and then demean or misrepresent the arguments of anyone else while never citing the rules from the PRD, providing DCs, instructions, and so forth.
Because that just sucks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel,
Most people don't have an issue if it's just a straight skill roll. In other words, the deciphering is just a skill roll. Everyone's had one of those 'duh' moments where they look at a problem they should be able to solve, and they can't. Then the guy who is bad at it actually blinks and says 'hey, isn't it 4?' and everyone facepalms.
What people like me have an issue with is someone who tanks their int to 7, puts all one of their skill points into Perception, and then wants to come up with complex battle plans and tell everyone what the monster's weaknesses are and wants to talk with flowery complicated speech in character to the king.
If you want to play someone who comes up with complex battle plans, either have some native talent at it (high int and wis) or put some skill points into it (profession soldier/tactician).
That's all I see people complaining about. All this other stuff is just arguing about stuff nobody's really disagreeing on for the most part.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hehe , i would so never play with a GM that made the DC for tests higher just because i had a 7 in something.
You have a -2 in your tests , but since you are actually really bad at this (which clearly is not what a -2 means right?) now your DC is 18 not 15 like it is for the others , sorry.
PS: I usually dont have anything under 10 if i can help it , but i would still never sit at the table to play with a guy like this lols.
I wonder , if i get 20 in int , does all my int skill DCs get reduced because im really smart? Cause they totally should by the same logic i would have higher DCs in other stuff.
Hehe , i would so never play with a GM that made the DC for tests higher just because i had a 7 in something.
You have a -2 in your tests , but since you are actually really bad at this (which clearly is not what a -2 means right?) now your DC is 18 not 15 like it is for the others , sorry.
PS: I usually dont have anything under 10 if i can help it , but i would still never sit at the table to play with a guy like this lols.
I wonder , if i get 20 in int , does all my int skill DCs get reduced because im really smart? Cause they totally should by the same logic i would have higher DCs in other stuff.
This is the big double-standard with the whole thing. You hear about people saying 'your character's so stupid, he wouldn't have thought of that' when they want to do something smart, but has anybody ever been told 'your character's too smart to do that' when the player is about to have him do something stupid?
Ashiel,
Most people don't have an issue if it's just a straight skill roll. In other words, the deciphering is just a skill roll. Everyone's had one of those 'duh' moments where they look at a problem they should be able to solve, and they can't. Then the guy who is bad at it actually blinks and says 'hey, isn't it 4?' and everyone facepalms.What people like me have an issue with is someone who tanks their int to 7, puts all one of their skill points into Perception, and then wants to come up with complex battle plans and tell everyone what the monster's weaknesses are and wants to talk with flowery complicated speech in character to the king.
So make them roll Knowledge checks to know what the monsters are. More than likely they will not be able to say anything about anything that isn't incredibly common (DC 5 + CR 5 or less) and will biff on the CR 3-5 stuff pretty regularly.
But what does complex battle plans have to do with anything? Wolves use tactics for goodness sakes. Even BEES and WASPS use tactics. There is no requirement for coming up with ideas. There is nothing in the rules anywhere that says you must have X ability score to suggest a tactic, nor a skill that determines how tactical you are allowed to be.
The flowery speech thing would be funny though. I'd love to see someone with a low Charisma and only ranks in Perception try to smooth things over with his flowery speech in my games. I'd ask for a Diplomacy check and when he or she failed I'd tell them they failed and give them the option to decide something they did wrong out of their speech or I would improvise if they are unsure.
Me: "That's all well and good, but unfortunately you came off as pompous and fake to them, and perhaps misused a few words or seemed to insinuate things you didn't intend, perhaps failing to insinuate some you did. It does not go over well."
If you want to play someone who comes up with complex battle plans, either have some native talent at it (high int and wis) or put some skill points into it (profession soldier/tactician).
Um, no? I'm not going to start requesting ability checks to allow my players to decide what they are doing or telling them "no, bad dog, no tactics for you". I don't see what it would add to the game other than frustration. Especially in the cases where the player is using low statistics to represent things like lack of education, naivety, being too trustworthy, or being absent minded rather than stupid.
That's all I see people complaining about. All this other stuff is just arguing about stuff nobody's really disagreeing on for the most part.
Well, the many posts concerning just these actual things is what I was talking about.
I actually responded to the OP early in the thread. Somehow my post got snatched by the mods as part of the mass post removal. I'm still trying to figure out why. I didn't insult anyone nor was I aggressive and my loveable sarcasm was no where to be found.
I did say that 3-18 is representative of the human non-crippled ranges and that D&D/PF ability scores do not do mental retardation, nor is it intended to (those would generally be status ailments of some sort). And that for many people it's just a difference of opinion as to what the ability scores mean. To most of us, a 7 in a score is not a big deal. It seems like a natural human flaw (NPCs are generated with 3 PB or 3d6). It makes them more real to us. It makes them more believable.
|
|
Several non-skill charisma checks made to influence people have been mentioned. Your failure to take those into account suggests either you are ignoring your opponents' position or intentionally misrepresenting it. Either way it is making it very difficult to engage in rational discussion with you.
Citation please. I've heard mention, but no citation. And I've asked for it.
What has been cited are diplomacy or intimidate checks doing exactly what the skill says it does, within the constraints and limitations of the skill.
I've never said they should have a harder time using the same skill with the same bonuses. I've said that the skill itself doesn't do anything more than the skill indicates, and that not factoring charisma in generic non-skill related NPC interactions makes no sense.
Do you disagree with that?
However, I'm not sure of your meaning of lumping people into "extreme groups." If you come to the table and claim to be wanting to roleplay, but then intentionally create a character with below-average intelligence... why would expecting that player's in-game persona to react as though they had below-average intelligence qualify as an extreme grouping?It seemed like an extreme grouping to me because you said "roleplaying" or "tactical wargame", but the nature of D&D and many tabletop RPGs afterwards are in fact both. Splitting people into two camps is often asking for troubles. There's a lot of gray area between those. For example, I myself am an avid roleplayer who puts a lot of detail in my characters, my NPCs, etc. I'm also something of a gygaxian simulationist where I want my dungeons and places in the world to seemingly make sense and take things like ecology and circumstances into consideration when designing adventures. Finally, I love the tactical aspects of the game as well and building exciting encounters and viable successful characters from a mechanical perspective.
In essence, I fall into BOTH of those categories, and as such it seems strange to me to lump people into either-or.
Again, this above example seems an awful lot like roleplaying your character's flaws to me, especially the parts where you explain the character's background to give context to his low intelligence (i.e., not knowing things others might consider common knowledge). It actually seems like a pretty solid example of how a character's role in the game can shine through because of a negative stat. I like it.Firstly, let me say thank you.
I also believe in roleplaying your flaws but only so far as it actually matters in game, and I believe that it is the right of the creator of the character to explain how their statistics model their character. There's no reason to make things doubly hard on a character because their statistic is lower, nor make it easier because it is higher, beyond what...
What about a straight Int check, but the guy with linguistics and know (obscure culture) gets a bonus to the check?