What about a straight Int check, but the guy with linguistics and know (obscure culture) gets a bonus to the check?
That's called a skill check Durngrun. :P
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
You can ask my players. I routinely look at them about to do something... less than brilliant... and ask them to give me an int or wis check. Unless the whiff it (which they do) I point out the fatal flaw to them.
The PC should not be punished just because he is not a 200 IQ super genius while his character is.
The PC should not be rewarded because they are smarter and have a better memory than their characters do (especially if they got points for making him dumb/foolish/mousy).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can ask my players. I routinely look at them about to do something... less than brilliant... and ask them to give me an int or wis check. Unless the whiff it (which they do) I point out the fatal flaw to them.
The PC should not be punished just because he is not a 200 IQ super genius while his character is.
The PC should not be rewarded because they are smarter and have a better memory than their characters do (especially if they got points for making him dumb/foolish/mousy).
I usually just go with the classic "Are you sure?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I do, but the type of player that dumps a stat then doesn't want to roleplay that dump is usually the type who ignore that requirement, and start using their silver or cold iron backup weapon with no reason to switch, and then cry 'do not tell me what my charcter can do' when the GM questions why they switch to a cold iron weapon for the fey BBEG.
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.
Oh good lord, this hoary chestnut again? I agree, D&D does a LOUSY job of handling animal intelligence. I VASTLY prefer the way Shadowrun did animals. Animals had an Intelligence, and an Instinct, attribute. The instinct was for things like wolves fighting in packs, bees and wasps using tactics, and so on. They used Int for reasoning out things (like a racoon reasoning out that clear jars with candy inside might mean opaque jars might have candy inside).
Just because the system has a stupid mechanic for one thing doesn't mean you apply that stupid mechanic to the entire system. That's like saying 'Well, one of our servers only has 2 gigs of ram, so let's limit all our servers to 2 gigs of active memory!'. Blech. Bad idea Ashiel.
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."
And that's a fine way to handle it, but people in this thread have said that is bad GMing because you are changing what they said. Even if you just change a few words because they didn't get it right, you are a bad GM because the 7 int 7 wis 7 cha character didn't spout the exact word for word with correct inflection speech the 10/10/10 player did.
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.
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).
You completely miss the point. My point was, if you want to roleplay A, why are you building B. I'm not telling you what to play or build, I'm ASKING WHY ARE YOU BUILDING MAXWELL SMART AND INSISTING ON PLAYING HIM AS JAMES BOND AND INSISTING HE BE REGARDED AS JAMES BOND?
There, hope that was clearer.
You can ask my players. I routinely look at them about to do something... less than brilliant... and ask them to give me an int or wis check. Unless the whiff it (which they do) I point out the fatal flaw to them.
The PC should not be punished just because he is not a 200 IQ super genius while his character is.
The PC should not be rewarded because they are smarter and have a better memory than their characters do (especially if they got points for making him dumb/foolish/mousy).
I consider your way of playing the game fair , also @Ciretose. You will take something and give something , you already explained this 7/8 pages ago.
I prefer to play like @Ashiel , so if im GMing , i dont care if you have 7 int , you dont need to be dumb at all. That simple to me. But honestly , im not discussing this with you , you have your way , i have my way , all is fine in the end of the day if our groups are having fun.
What i have a problem with , are the people changing the DC of the test , really now? You have int 7 , so your DC is 18 not 15 like the rest , do these people tell their players is not a -2 but a -5 in the int DCs they are taking? Lols i wonder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
I believe they refer to the mention of Charisma in opposed contests when trying to command a beguiled person. It's true that the line you are defending could have been written with that in mind. However, it is worded in such a way that it covers ANY check dealing with social interaction.
Checks that represent attempts to influence others. I'm not understanding why anyone thinks this line definitely does NOT cover social interaction, but MUST cover contests of will in a few spell descriptions. It's the old religious debate. You can't prove this line covers initial NPC attitudes. They can't prove that it doesn't. Neither side understands why the other doesn't get it.
I'm of the mind to say it covers both.
I consider your way of playing the game fair , also @Ciretose. You will take something and give something , you already explained this 7/8 pages ago.I prefer to play like @Ashiel , so if im GMing , i dont care if you have 7 int , you dont need to be dumb at all. That simple to me. But honestly , im not discussing this with you , you have your way , i have my way , all is fine in the end of the day if our groups are having fun.
What i have a problem with , are the people changing the DC of the test , really now? You have int 7 , so your DC is 18 not 15 like the rest , do these people tell their players is not a -2 but a -5 in the int DCs they are taking? Lols i wonder.
I probably wouldn't enjoy playing in your game, but if I was in it, I would totally tank charisma and int and just do whatever I wanted. I would have no downside to it. Then I would have the best of both worlds, I could use my own IQ and my own Charisma at the table.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It sounds like you guys are trying to make rules to enforce roleplaying, which is always going to be a losing battle.
If you have a problem with how your players are playing their characters, you need to talk it out like adults, not try to box them in with extra rules.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that playing that way is "wrong" but when you say you don't want to punish the low scores, you are also not rewarding the high scores.
If that is ok with you, great. But you can't act like you are being nice by not punishing low scores when by doing so you are in a sense punishing high scores.
Uh why? Do i need to make some players worse so that others feel superior?
People with high int will make their checks , they will get their bonus and so on.
Others will not get these things , will have the -2 on the checks and so on , what i dont want is to force someone to be dumb ,to lack common sense, to be ugly(honestly , this does not even matter to me , like mdt himself showed before , so many modifiers in the end cha will matter little , not because 18 cha is low , but because there are 1000 things to factor here , from race ,to sex, to age, to clothes, to culture, to ...) and so on.
Also i usually play summoner or bard (my main picks) , and to both i add a high charisma usually , never felt worse than others because i have to focus this ... i dont get it really , do you guys when play these classes fell worse for getting charisma just because it does not help in the sheet? I usually dont even mind this lols. Just play the class i like and have fun with it.
|
"It sounds like you guys are trying to make rules to remove effects of low charisma scores, which is always going to be a losing battle.
If you have a problem with how your players are playing their characters, you need to talk it out like adults, not try to box them in with house rules added to skills to allow more min/maxing"
See what I did there
Someone once said communication is the key to ending conflict.
Whoever that person was hadn't taken the internet into account.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled disagreement over something that everyone is just going to do their own way anyway.
I probably wouldn't enjoy playing in your game, but if I was in it, I would totally tank charisma and int and just do whatever I wanted. I would have no downside to it. Then I would have the best of both worlds, I could use my own IQ and my own Charisma at the table.
Yeap , you would get only the poor skill modifiers , but you could then compensate for them if that is what you want, in case any stat check came up (which they do heh) , you would have to deal with the -2.
I dont see a big deal on a 7 , but if you do , by all means change to the way you see best at your table.
Do you also make sure the people with low strength get bonuses to hit so that they don't feel bad?
Uh why? Do i need to make some players worse so that others feel superior?
Hehe nah.
Str/dex/con are not the same int/wis/char.
If you have a bad roll or bad modifiers , you have them. (i did say you will take the -2 for the 7s you get).
But then again , like i said before , i have no intention on keeping this up with you guys. I understood how you want to play it, i have nothing against it , just prefer a different style.
No point in keeping this up , neither of us going to step back from where we stand heh , we are just saying the same things over and over.
Honestly , that is what made this thread get to 11 pages lols.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You completely miss the point. My point was, if you want to roleplay A, why are you building B. I'm not telling you what to play or build, I'm ASKING WHY ARE YOU BUILDING MAXWELL SMART AND INSISTING ON PLAYING HIM AS JAMES BOND AND INSISTING HE BE REGARDED AS JAMES BOND?
There, hope that was clearer.
Perhaps the problem here is misunderstanding. I think we're talking about completely different things. On one hand I'm saying that having an ability score of X means nothing more than it actually means to the character's statistics, and that I don't think creating non-existent mechanics to kick people for having characters with flaws is cool.
However, you seem to be upset about something entirely different. It sounds like you're describing players who pretend they don't have a penalty to their checks or get upset if you make them make their actual skill checks (like Diplomacy) and such instead of just having the NPCs go along with what they want.
Well, I can understand that. I've had players who have gotten upset when their PCs died or failed to stop a bad guy, or any number of combat related things as well. That's just how the game goes, failure - fair failure - is just a normal part of the game.
So I apologize for wasting your time, but I really think we're talking about two very different things. I dump stats all the time both for mechanical and fluff reasons (because I actually dislike characters who are flawless unless the whole point of them is to be incredibly jack-of-all-ish). I feel like those things can represent mechanically different aspects of a character (similar to how my posterboy fighter Sigfried has a 7 Charisma but part of his theme is going from being some tough soldier guy to a guy who is comfortable socializing and making friends over the course of his growth as a person).
I've played rangers with Intelligence AND Charisma scores at 7, representing their lack of formal education and preference to be in the wilderness and away from social interactivity, which is why they have less skill points than a more educated ranger, and are not good with dealing with locals.
I'm currently playing a psion who is flavored as a witch who is a shapechanger that grew up in the wilderness all alone save for her mentor and (unbeknownst to her, Aunt) who trained her in the magics that she knows. She has a very high Intelligence and a very poor Charisma with slightly above average stats elsewhere (nothing higher than a 12 though). Being poor in social skill means she is often too blunt or gets flustered when trying to deal with people other than her (equally low) Charisma mentor. I've recently began investing in her social skills to represent her becoming more comfortable with people since she has been traveling with the party and talking to people and being inside society rather than on the fringes.
But I still roll my Diplomacy when I'm trying to call situations down. In fact, my character has yet to actually KILL anyone in combat, because she tries to diffuse situations without killing (life is sacred, though her mentor is trying to break her from these "weak" ideals). Despite being low Charisma she has tried to talk her way through a number of situations (and I can probably get the GM of that game to verify if you want, since he's a regular on these boards, which is how we met) and she's biffed most of them to her frustration but that's life. :P
So I think you're describing a different sort of thing than I thought you were, and for my confusion I apologize again.
PS: When a player pulls a silver weapon against a werewolf or something, I honestly don't care. Some metagaming doesn't bother me because it's not worth arguing over. I can change feats, HD, templates, class levels, equipment, and even point buy for NPCs to customize them in ways that the game remains interesting.
Do I think it's really cool when a player chooses to NOT draw a silver weapon when fighting a werewolf or imp when they've never seen one before? Yes, I do. However it's not worth splitting hairs over and they're likely to get much better information with a successful knowledge check (things like HD/HP estimates, attack roll info, save info, special qualities, etc). The junk that is usually "meta-gamed" is usually junk most people would know near automatically anyway (given that things like silver weapons are probably common enough werewolf lore as to be DC 5 or less).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"It sounds like you guys are trying to make rules to remove effects of low charisma scores, which is always going to be a losing battle.
If you have a problem with how your players are playing their characters, you need to talk it out like adults, not try to box them in with house rules added to skills to allow more min/maxing"
See what I did there
I do. Do you see that the words that you wrote make no sense?
There is an effect of low charisma scores in Pathfinder. It is called a Charisma penalty. It makes it harder to succeed at Charisma-based skill checks and Charisma checks, such as those used to bind summoned creatures or in opposed Charisma checks in spells like Dominate Person.
You don't feel that penalty is severe enough for the benefit the characters get from other ability scores. I get that.
You find min-maxed characters distasteful and that it detracts from the worlds you're trying to create. I get that, too.
So you want to enforce Charisma checks. Cool. The CRB accounts for Charisma checks.
But then you say that clearly, you use this Charisma check to determine starting attitude. Yet when pressed to offer a specific DC or result from this check, you provide no answer. Because there is no answer. There's no written rule for using a Charisma check to determine starting attitude.
Doesn't mean you can't use one. I've never once said that. It just means it's not a defined rule in Pathfinder.
And I suspect--and I could be wrong here--that the reason you refuse to give me any hard and fast answer, and the reason you refuse to concede that what you're doing is anything less than iron-clad, from-Paizo's-mouth-to-your-ears rules as written, is that you have to maintain your authority over your players. And that sounds like a very tiresome way to play a game.
You can't use rules to fix behavior.
My GM hates the Witch Hex. HATES it. But rather than try to find some arcane rule that would allow him to circumvent it, he asked the player to please stop using it as his first move in every encounter. Player agreed. We moved on.
If you feel your players are abusing the RAW, just talk to them. I can't imagine anyone having fun in such an antagonistic environment.
I've said all I have to say on the matter. If you want to add rules to the game, add rules. If you want to claim they're part of the game, go nuts. If you pull that in PFS as my GM, I may call you on it, but probably not because I'm just there to have fun, not to win at Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The big issue I see with insisting that people roleplay dumped mental stats is that I haven't seen anything remotely approaching a consensus on how that's supposed to work. Pretty much every single ability score covers a pretty wide variety of things, to the point where a good roleplayer could come up with half a dozen ways to represent it.
Let's say we're dealing with the classic 7 Int fighter that keeps coming up. That intelligence score could fit all kinds of character archetypes. Maybe the character has decent brainpower, but hasn't had any formal education. Maybe the character plays with the classic Idiot Hero trope. Maybe you have a fighter who's an idiot savant; stupid about most things, but gifted when it comes to combat. Or maybe the character is just of all-around below average intelligence.
There's also the issue of how much of a roleplaying effect a dumped stat should have. Seven intelligence is definitely dumber than ten intelligence, but how much dumber is it? Pathfinder has no clear rules to answer that question, other than the already established mechanical penalties. Without any real official rules on the matter, it's going to boil down to each GM making their own call.
It also ends up running afoul of one of the cardinal rules of roleplaying; that the players get to control their own characters. If the GM needs to stop the game and tell a player "no, your character can't do that" then something has gone seriously wrong. I don't like the idea of the GM watching their players like a hawk, waiting to pounce the instant they start roleplaying too intelligently for their character. Especially since, as I previously mentioned, the lack of written rules for how mental ability scores should effect roleplaying means those standards are going to be highly subjective.
Add in the fact that, as this very thread has demonstrated, some people see roleplaying restrictions as a way to punish and discourage optimizing, and you get an even messier situation. Unwritten and highly subjective rules are bad enough when the GM isn't out to get any of their players who have a playstyle they disapprove of. It just makes for a messy and highly volatile situation with way too much potential to end in arguments and bad feelings.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the problem with basing one's cosmetic looks upon charisma is we have different standards for beauty, and if appearance and charisma were tied together, powergamers would be able to use a hat of disguise to take a more appealing form that would make their real charisma score irrelevant
it's the problem with the comeliness stat
ones physique, how their body is built, would be based upon summon up aspects of their three physical stats, strength, dexterity, and constitution.
how charisma would factor in appearance, is presentation.
charisma, isn't how good you look or how well you groom yourself, it's how you present and assert yourself.
charisma affects skill checks that influence others
but whether or not you give one the minute for diplomacy, shouldn't be based on some number that can't be seen, such as their charisma score, it can be based on such factors as race, appearant culture, age, clothing or similar factors though.
as an example
the thieves guild doesn't mind the young sylph street urchin in the tattered minidress with the deck of cards, even if she doesn't possess any rogue levels OOC. being a thief, burglar, beggar, street magician, performer, seventh story lass, fortune teller, spy, locksmith and pickpocket. she is more likely to identify with a gypsy themed thieves guild than a human noble born rogue whom focuses on being a social fop, swashbuckler and pirate. the swashbuckling human has more charisma, but the sylph street urchin is more likely to understand the troupe/guild and will likely get a circumstance bonus, despite being a wizard. due to being familiar enough with the gypsy way to get along with the gypsy inspired thieves guild, the swashbuckler would instead, recieve a circumstance bonus with marines and sailors.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played rangers with Intelligence AND Charisma scores at 7, representing their lack of formal education and preference to be in the wilderness and away from social interactivity, which is why they have less skill points than a more educated ranger, and are not good with dealing with locals.Int 7 shoudl be much more than lack of formal education.
Who says? Show me in the rules. Go ahead. If you can't...my point. We have the mechanics. How we use those mechanics to define characters is our choice.
Meanwhile while you're trying to find something that says that 7 Int means exactly what you want it to mean and not what anyone else wants it to mean, I'd like to talk about the Ranger and skills.
My 7 Int ranger has 4 skill points per level before human racial bonus or favored class bonuses. That's a LOT more than most classes get.
Also, why do I HAVE to have all those skills? Or who's to say I won't? I do a lot of dipping with my skill points (did back in 3.x as well) rather than just picking X skills and maxing their ranks.
At 1st level? Climb, Jump, Perception, and Stealth all seem pretty good for starters. 2nd level? Swim, Perception, Stealth, and Handle Animal. 3rd Level? A few more points in Perception and Stealth, and I might drop a rank in Disable Device and Spellcraft.
Of course, then I've got another 1-2 points from race/favored class if I want them (most of my rangers are humans, which seem like a pretty good race for having these discussions since we're humans too).
I've posted many ranger builds on these forums that have a low Int or Charisma (or sometimes both) that have no issues with skills. In fact, many of the low-Int ones also take item creation feats and max Spellcraft.
My Point is Simple: Stop telling other people how to play their characters when you have nothing in the rules to back it up. Stop wasting everyone's time that could be better spent gaming.
Here is a really good roleplaying exercise: Have your players play with their character sheets face down. Don't show anyone else your alignment, your statistics, your HP, or anything. Just act your characters and roll your checks. Check your mods when you need to. See how long it takes before people stop meta gaming statistics and focus on character interaction.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly get the feeling there are some posters in here who would be perfectly fine with someone showing up with an Advanced Half-Fiend Tiefling who wrote 'Looks and acts Human' on the character sheet and then allowing them to play the character as a human. Because that's what the Player says the character is. *shrug* I guess I'm a grognard, I think the numbers on the sheet should actually describe the character, not just be random numbers that affect die rolls. I guess I'm just too old fashioned for this newfangled 'we don't keep score cause someone might feel they weren't as good as someone else' cotton candy world.
I honestly get the feeling there are some posters in here who would be perfectly fine with someone showing up with an Advanced Half-Fiend Tiefling who wrote 'Looks and acts Human' on the character sheet and then allowing them to play the character as a human. Because that's what the Player says the character is. *shrug* I guess I'm a grognard, I think the numbers on the sheet should actually describe the character, not just be random numbers that affect die rolls. I guess I'm just too old fashioned for this newfangled 'we don't keep score cause someone might feel they weren't as good as someone else' cotton candy world.
i wouldn't be find with an advanced half-fiend tiefling in most games unless everybody was playing with templates
but i am fine with tieflings or other planetouched that look and act human due to their heavily dominant human bloodline, or a half-nymph that looks like a half-elf.
the planar features on a planetouched are optional
|
There was a complaint about post length so I'll break this up. @ciretose:
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.
On the very last post I made. I know they're long, but I make one post to every five of yours so I think you ought to read them, or else I stop reading yours.
Likewise, "Checks to influence others" does refer to checks involved in spells [edit: I'm referring to charm and planar ally], AS WELL AS wild empathy (a check to influence others that is not with a spell). It also factors into the Loyalty check a ruler makes to influence their kingdom, if using kingdom building. And you can make a charisma check to break someone else's Enthrall spell (note that the person making the charisma check isn't the one trying to use a spell to influence others).
That's three applications involving specific spells and two not involving spells.
I believe they refer to the mention of Charisma in opposed contests when trying to command a beguiled person. It's true that the line you are defending could have been written with that in mind. However, it is worded in such a way that it covers ANY check dealing with social interaction.
Checks that represent attempts to influence others. I'm not understanding why anyone thinks this line definitely does NOT cover social interaction, but MUST cover contests of will in a few spell descriptions. It's the old religious debate. You can't prove this line covers initial NPC attitudes. They can't prove that it doesn't. Neither side understands why the other doesn't get it.
I'm of the mind to say it covers both.
The problem is that “checks that represent attempts to influence others” also includes Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Bluff checks. The line does not refer exclusively to those skills; not just one but several examples outside skills have been given above. However, if a “check to influence others” properly falls within the jurisdiction of a Diplomacy, Intimidate, or Bluff check, that skill check should be used and not a flat Cha check. And the DC of the Diplomacy check in a situation in which Diplomacy should apply should not be set by the Diplomat's Cha score.
I've never said they should have a harder time using the same skill with the same bonuses.
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.
If someone with an 18 Cha wants to make a Diplomacy check, the NPC will listen (but not to someone with an 8 Cha). Being unable to even attempt the check = having a harder time making the check.
I did say I read your posts.
|
|
What about a straight Int check, but the guy with linguistics and know (obscure culture) gets a bonus to the check?That's called a skill check Durngrun. :P
Not necessarily. I still use synergy sometimes: for example, if making a check to identify a Fungus Queen (a plant with the extraplanar subtype) I might ask for a Knowledge(nature) check with a +2 bonus if you also are trained in / have 5 or more ranks in Knowledge (planes). Likewise, if asked to solve a riddle that includes a reference to some animal, historical event, ancient language, etc, I would call for an Int check but allow a +2 bonus for training in the applicable skill.
Basically, just because by the rules it *can* be done doesn't mean it *must* be done nor does it mean it actually reflects any kind of demographic reality we are used to seeing.
Yes I know, it's fantasy, dragons, magic blah blah but there is far more in a good setting that reflects realities that we can see in our history books than there is that doesn't. Demographics should be no different. Hence the percentile roll.
One of the reasons my group rolls scores instead of using point buy – they feel more organic. Also no one gives you grief with putting a 7 in your barbarian's charisma, because if you rolled it it has to go somewhere and it's sure not going in your physical stats.
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."And that's a fine way to handle it, but people in this thread have said that is bad GMing because you are changing what they said. Even if you just change a few words because they didn't get it right, you are a bad GM because the 7 int 7 wis 7 cha character didn't spout the exact word for word with correct inflection speech the 10/10/10 player did.
The problem this thread had was with deciding that a botched Diplomacy means that the PC has called a barmaid “Sweet****.” And the proposed alternative was telling the PC “Yes, you said X, but it came off as offensive for some subtle reason.”
(This seems to have gotten cleared due to one of the involved posters allegedly accusing another of misogyny)
|
|
My 7 Int ranger has 4 skill points per level before human racial bonus or favored class bonuses. That's a LOT more than most classes get.
Skill points don't necessarily mean education, either. Ranks in Knowledge (arcana, planes, history, nobility) and maybe (engineering), or in Linguistics, would tend to suggest formal education to me.
At 1st level? Climb, Jump, Perception, and Stealth all seem pretty good for starters. 2nd level? Swim, Perception, Stealth, and Handle Animal. 3rd Level? A few more points in Perception and Stealth, and I might drop a rank in Disable Device and Spellcraft.
All what I'd consider “no education required” skills.
Not that I'd tell you you couldn't represent your character's Int 7 as being uneducated as long as you applied the appropriate mechanical penalties. I just think it would be a bit odd for an “uneducated” character to take a penalty at playing chess (which I'd model with an Int check) after having been introduced to the rules.
I honestly get the feeling there are some posters in here who would be perfectly fine with someone showing up with an Advanced Half-Fiend Tiefling who wrote 'Looks and acts Human' on the character sheet and then allowing them to play the character as a human. Because that's what the Player says the character is. *shrug* I guess I'm a grognard, I think the numbers on the sheet should actually describe the character, not just be random numbers that affect die rolls. I guess I'm just too old fashioned for this newfangled 'we don't keep score cause someone might feel they weren't as good as someone else' cotton candy world.
I'm just starting a campaign with a PC whose extraplanar heritage is unusually subtle. Most people can't put a finger on what's odd about him and he doesn't talk about it much - we're expecting him opening up about it to key people to be an RP moment. It's not that it doesn't affect the character, it's just that it's a bit more subtle.
Wouldn't allow it with a half-outsider, though. And the group's dhampir is all about being a dhampir.
I honestly get the feeling there are some posters in here who would be perfectly fine with someone showing up with an Advanced Half-Fiend Tiefling who wrote 'Looks and acts Human' on the character sheet and then allowing them to play the character as a human. Because that's what the Player says the character is.
I don't think that would fit well in my games. I've got like 20+ playable races in my home campaign, including a lot of planetouched (aasimar and tieflings are really common due to some planar activity in the campaign's history) but I don't see how a half-fiend can look and act human without some sort of magic given that half-fiends have wings. Plus I don't generally let players take the advanced template...or use half-fiend or half-dragon templates (if you want to play a tiefling to represent a fiendish bloodline and then go into a half-fiend homebrewed racial progression we could talk about it).
*shrug* I guess I'm a grognard, I think the numbers on the sheet should actually describe the character, not just be random numbers that affect die rolls.
This makes two of us. We must be on the same side in fact. I think the statistics should represent the character. That's pretty much what we're doing here.
I guess I'm just too old fashioned for this newfangled 'we don't keep score cause someone might feel they weren't as good as someone else' cotton candy world.
Hm, what is this score you mention? We have a lot of statistics, but do you mean experience points, gold pieces, or some other form of acquisition for "winning"? That seems bizarre. See, I thought roleplaying games had a series of statistics that form the whole of a character and determines their limits and ability to interact in a game with no set goals or competition.
See like when I made Sigfried he actually seems like a real and believable person. It looks like I took someone out of reality and slapped them into the game with pros and cons, flaws, and handicaps that he could strive to overcome as his character progressed through the game and his shared story. His Charisma penalty strengthens his concept as he grows better at social interaction (Diplomacy) with his level but he's very bad at lying (Bluff at -2) because he has neither the patience nor experience for lying, or activating magic items, or acting, or carrying a tune, or disguising himself, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skill points don't necessarily mean education, either. Ranks in Knowledge (arcana, planes, history, nobility) and maybe (engineering), or in Linguistics, would tend to suggest formal education to me.
EXACTLY~! :D
They don't necessarily mean which is the whole point! You've got it!
Not that I'd tell you you couldn't represent your character's Int 7 as being uneducated as long as you applied the appropriate mechanical penalties. I just think it would be a bit odd for an “uneducated” character to take a penalty at playing chess (which I'd model with an Int check) after having been introduced to the rules.
Heh, you can practice and get better at chess so you should be able to put skill points into it. It's not a raw ability or else people wouldn't be able to get better at it through study. As a chess player myself I could also see Wisdom being argued as a key skill since a lot of it is about awareness and being perceptive of upcoming movements and noticing weaknesses.
I've seen plenty of smart people who suck donkey at chess. A good friend of mine who was amazingly crafty, quick witted, socially gifted and incredibly quick to pick up lots of video games, but he was not so hot with either chess or checkers. It's just one of those things.
A human mind is made up of many different strengths and weaknesses of varying means, and the human range for nondamaged mental prowess is in fact 3-20 in three different measurements that are loosely related to a lot of various aspects that define a character. It's hard to call a character truly stupid unless they are struggling in virtually every mental statistic, especially when it's clearly demonstrable that there's little difference between a human with 3 Int versus one with 7 Int beyond the penalty, or the fact that it is entirely reasonable for a human with a 3 Intelligence can be a skilled professional who makes lots of money and has a good life, or a character with a 3 Wisdom can be a great craftsman who makes lots of money and has a good life, or a 3 Charisma character who learned to overcome their social issues and function in society even though they had a difficult time of it.
Even Intelligence isn't even well defined. As Nicos points out it says learns and reasons, yet Profession (Accountant) or (Philosopher) is Wisdom governed, while Linguistics has little do with reason in most cases rather than paying attention to fine details (another trait usually associated with Wisdom). The ability score descriptions are far from all encompassing and are little more than that. A short one line description before it actually goes on to define what they mean in game terms which determines what really matters to a character because it determines what they actually DO.
|
|
I agree that Int is a multifaceted stat (as are Wis and Cha), which is why I'm not going to dictate how you RP it as long as your RP plausibly fits your character's overall mechanics. I just think that lack of education is one of the less plausible causes of a PC's Int 7 compared to, say "bad memory," "poor logical ability" or "difficulty visualizing abstract concepts." EDIT: Which could be RP'd by forgetting adventure details, using obvious logical fallacies, or needing ideas explained to you in simple language, respectively.
I would be perfectly happy to let a character take either a Knowledge or Profession skill for chess.
I think the reason for Linguistics being Int-based is that it involves pattern recognition, which I generally think of as an extension to reasoning ability (though it's true it's also related to perceptiveness/insight).
I agree that Int is a multifaceted stat (as are Wis and Cha), which is why I'm not going to dictate how you RP it as long as your RP plausibly fits your character's overall mechanics. I just think that lack of education is one of the less plausible causes of a PC's Int 7 compared to, say "bad memory," "poor logical ability" or "difficulty visualizing abstract concepts." EDIT: Which could be RP'd by forgetting adventure details, using obvious logical fallacies, or needing ideas explained to you in simple language, respectively.
I think these are all great ideas. ^_^
if you want to say "you must have X charisma score to look like X"
let me point out, that your physique is an extension of your physical stats
and since different races and cultures have different definitions of beauty
people could be attracted to different things, which could leave to different seduction based bonuses
using my half-nymph noblewoman from another thread as an example. her petite frame, and doll-like appearance, left her a prime target for abduction and assault. she had issues influencing males that lack a series of particular interests, but for people with some derivative of those interests, she would get bonuses. such examples of people with those interests, would be lonely puppeteers and ventriloquists, people whom over-appreciate youth and cuteness, people with creepy doll related obscessions, and the like. the three of which, would often be found on one person. she had an 18 charisma and a decent diplomacy modifer, and while she could persuade fantasy Gepetto or most Nippophiles (Weeaboos) (Circumstance bonus), she couldn't as easily persuade a barbarian tribe because she "wasn't a good candidate for bearing sons." (Circumstance penalty)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which could be RP'd by forgetting adventure details, using obvious logical fallacies, or needing ideas explained to you in simple language, respectively.
So, like someone who posts on the Internet!
|
|
I do. Do you see that the words that you wrote make no sense?
There is an effect of low charisma scores in Pathfinder. It is called a Charisma penalty. It makes it harder to succeed at Charisma-based skill checks and Charisma checks
I cut you off at the point we agree, and before you tried to narrow what it says to "some" charisma checks that you think are right.
All charisma checks. What is one type of charisma check, as defined by the rules.
"Checks that represent attempts to influence others."
Notice how I keep quoting the rule. Notice how you omitted it from your list.
Why is that?
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.
I see where you're coming from now. You're right, my comment about Roleplayers and Wargamers is a bit of a stretched assumption, but one that comes from various experiences over the years. In the various groups I've been in, there was a clear divide between those who wanted some RP in their wargame, versus those who wanted a little combat in their RP.
The RPers in my group always looked at a character and said "Alright, my character is highly flawed in this manner, how can I make that fun and interesting and more than just a number?" whereas the combat boardgamers looked at a dump as an irrelevant stat to the min/max effectiveness of their combat build.
My "raise the DC" idea was really not something I'd necessarily execute in an actual game, unless I felt the context of the story called for it. It was more of a "off the top of my head" alternative to flat out saying "No, you are too stupid to do that" to a player, if a DM was just itching for a reason. But I likewise wouldn't be unwilling to use it, either.
Admittedly however, I do not necessarily play the game RAW, either. Yes, a character with an Int Penalty is technically already penalized. But whether that is enough of a penalty is a whole different argument that would probalby take another 15+ pages. I personally find Pathfinder only a marginal improvement over the source material of Dungeons & Dragons 3.5, and remains highly flawed in many ways. You can score stunning successes and crippling failures that often just make no sense, just because of the way the game's mechanics have been cobbled together. I feel it often can't make up its mind between being fantastical, or strict and realistic.
Ultimately I play the game for fun, and I'm more likely to bend rules in favor of a player than against. But I'll bend against them if it just makes more sense to me. When you sit down at my table, my goal is for you to have fun, and I will work to that end; but we all see things differently, so if you do not, I wish you well at your next group.
|
|
I've played rangers with Intelligence AND Charisma scores at 7, representing their lack of formal education and preference to be in the wilderness and away from social interactivity, which is why they have less skill points than a more educated ranger, and are not good with dealing with locals.Int 7 shoudl be much more than lack of formal education.
In fact, to further this, the formal education is what the skill is.
You may not be smart, but if you study history, you have knowledge history.
Now having knowledge history doesn't make you smart. It means you know a lot about a specific thing. You acquired a skill at a specific thing.
That is what a skill is.
Now where the problem comes in for me is when you want to claim your knowledge of history means something other than "I'm know history".
Or, that you've learned how to negotiate contracts makes you better looking, better able to lead, more interesting, etc...
If you have an 18 intelligence and no formal education (skills), you are smart.
If you have an 18 Strength and no training on how to climb or swim, you are strong.
If you have an 18 Charisma and no training in diplomacy, you are Charismatic.
If you have a 7 Intelligence and know lots about history, you are knowledgeable about history, but not particularly intelligent in general.
If you have a 7 strength, but can swim like a fish or climb like a mountain goat, you are skilled in those areas, but not particularly strong.
And if you have a 7 Charisma, but went to law school to learn how to negotiate and gather information, you are skilled at diplomacy, but not particularly Charismatic.
Which is why it takes 1 minute of continuous interaction and only lasts for 1d4 hours.
Do any of these numbers mean you are "dumb", "Weak", or "Disgusting"?
No. They would be on he low end of average.
Would the 7 scores relative to the 18 scores be noticeable different?
Wouldn't you think an NPC could notice the difference between low average and near world class exceptional?
I don't see how you can reasonably argue they wouldn't. Particularly with Charisma.
What is an ability score
"They are his raw talent and prowess. While a character rarely rolls a check using just an ability score, these scores, and the modifiers they create, affect nearly every aspect of a character's skills and abilities. Each ability score generally ranges from 3 to 18, although racial bonuses and penalties can alter this; an average ability score is 10."
I don't think it is a tenable argument to say that you can ignore ability scores by adding functions to skills that are not in the skills.
That is the argument being made by the other side.
They exist. Take a look at Tony Abbott in Australia.
We voted a guy who dumped Int, Wis and Cha to our highest public office.Love it when to take a cheap swipe people inadvertently insult themselves, their country, its populace that votes and all sides of politics.
It also manages to insult sydney university, oxford university and a variety of bachelor degrees.Congrats all !
Burn on Rubber Ducky guy!
|
|
If someone with an 18 Cha wants to make a Diplomacy check, the NPC will listen (but not to someone with an 8 Cha). Being unable to even attempt the check = having a harder time making the check.
I did say I read your posts.
As I said
"...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 I stand behind completely.
If I'm an Orc talking to a Shoanti tribe who has been terrorized by Orcs, I can assume the starting attitude of the tribe isn't going to be as good for me as it would be for my full Shoanti party member friend.
If my personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are really, really good, it shouldn't be surprising if people find my personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance...well...really, really good.
My diplomacy check has nothing to do with setting the starting attitude.
Circumstances influence starting attitude.
My personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance influence people around me, regardless of if I am making separate skill check or not.
If I have a high strength, I can carry more weight while making my climb check than someone with low strength.
We are making the same skill check, but I start off being able to carry more when making that same check. Because I am stronger. My strength and what it gives me aside from the check is aside from the check. I am skilled at climbing on the one hand, and extra weight effects me less on the other hand.
The strength bonus to climb is for the climb check. Any other bonuses I get from strength are aside and separate from the bonuses I get to the check, even if means I can climb carrying the wizard on my back
If I make an acrobatics check and fail, but thanks to my high Dex modifier to AC I still dodge the attack, that is also two separate things.
The check is the check. It isn't double jeopardy to be able to climb with more weight and not take a penalty. It isn't double jeopardy to have better AC when you tumble.
And if 6 charisma guy and 18 charisma guy walk into a bar, should everyone in the bar ignore that fact that one of them is below average in personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance while the other one is exceptional with regards to personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Because that seems to be what you are arguing for, and that makes no rational sense to me.
It may be possible to solve at least part of this debate by employing a little math.
If we assume:
1. A PC with at least an average Cha is able to "take 10." Therefore, in most social situations, they do not need a roll. The DM can assume an average reaction.
2. A PC with a below-average score has to roll, and they're not always going to succeed.
3. The number of additional rolls could in theory, impose a penalty on the rest of the group--they have to sit there while all of these additional rolls are made. Not only does this take time, it can also interfere with immersion of the story and risk reducing even common interactions to: I roll a die to interact with Mack the Bartender. Now I roll a die to interact with Jep the Groom. Now I...
In any case, reducing the sheer number of rolls is likely desirable.
We can do this "strictly by the numbers." Take the average roll of say, a Cha 7. We can determine that they'll make a negative impression x percent of the time, and a really negative impression y percent of the time, and other times, come out about average.
If we came up with numbers like this, then we can fudge it a little and say: Okay, Bob the Mauler. Your low charisma means that 40 percent of the time, you're going to receive a disliked response or a hostile one.
Either way. It puts a bit of a sour taste in my mouth, but what the hey.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I found the end!
I found the end!!!
Who says? Show me in the rules. Go ahead. If you can't...my point. We have the mechanics. How we use those mechanics to define characters is our choice.In case somebody do not notice it.
"Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons"
If you say " My 7 int represent lack of formal education but I do learn and reason pretty well" then you are against the text.
It has fluff and it has effects. Learning and reason is not a game mechanic. It's just a short one-liner that gives an at a glance description of a baseline statistic.
Don't be like that other guy who takes a fluff description and makes out like it's mechanics. It does not end well when you do that. It didn't end well when he did that either.
It's as much a game mechanic as the monk's class description is a game mechanic. It's something to set the mood. How it actually gets presented in game is an entirely different matter.
I found the end!
I found the end!!!
Congratulations!! :D
|
|
If we came up with numbers like this, then we can fudge it a little and say: Okay, Bob the Mauler. Your low charisma means that 40 percent of the time, you're going to receive a disliked response or a hostile one.
Who is saying disliked or hostile?
I would rather discuss positions actually put forth by people.