|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I never ceased to be amazed how what disagrees with your position turns out to be fluff, but what doesn't is gospel.
It is amazing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say im pretty much on MDTs' side on this forum. I'm an old school gamer, been playing for over 20 years. A characters stats is the basic building blocks, the foundation, if you will. And i've seen some posts that i wonder if there even serious or just trolling. If you have a 7 str your not going to be big like the Rock, if you have a 7 Int your not going to be professor X, if you have a 7 Chr your going to look or act like you belong in the movie the hills have eyes, not a boy band.
If a player has a curtain persona he expects of his character i expect his stats to reflect it. If you have a penalty to a stat you have a disadvantage to that aspect of you-its as simple as that. I expect my players to give SOME quality to his background to reflect this flawed aspect of himself. Same as if you have a advantage to a stat, i expect a player to play up his strengths.
I bet if the GM started pulling this kind of stuff the players would cry bloody murder. Example if a large orc hits for 2 damage then you describe a frail orc child attacking your party tank and smashing him for 12 damage, they would cry BS! OHH but hes really strong on the inside cause thats how i want to play him, his muscles are just REALLY dense ;) There is enough realism issues with rules without turning basic stats upside down.
Luckily i dont have any issues with my players dumping stats, especially CHR. Of my current group 3 of 4 have + chr mods with a 20 point buy. We dont see the point of maxing a stat. If everyone maxes out all there main stats all this really does is put the game on easy mode. We dont like to put the game on beginner mode, we like it challenging after playing it for so many years. While we dont gimp ourselves we do build our heroes more organically.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to agree here. Ashield asked for a text taht disprove his point, I show him it. It even is the first prhase in the description of intelligence.
No, I asked for a rule.
Okay, Nicos, tell me this. What does 7 Intelligence mean? How much reasoning and/or learning ability do you have at that number? Can you show me where, in the core rulebook, it defines it as anything other than a fluffy abstract?
It clearly tells the game effects: You get more or less skill points, it applies to these skills, it's a key statistic for wizards and such.
Characters do not make Intelligence checks to learn stuff (though this might make for the starting point of an interesting mechanic in a classless game or a game without class skill ranks). So what what does it do to improve learning and reasoning? It does what it says it does. Nothing more, nothing less.
Just like classes have descriptions that are not roles and can be refluffed to suit the character concept in play. Hell, some descriptions don't even fit mechanically (or like many aspects attributed to Intelligence or Wisdom are also associated with the other).
I'm not sure how to break it down to you in a way that you will understand. I'm not sure how to explain what fluff is and what mechanics are. Maybe this will help.
For those who relish the thrill of the hunt, there are only predators and prey. Be they scouts, trackers, or bounty hunters, rangers share much in common: unique mastery of specialized weapons, skill at stalking even the most elusive game, and the expertise to defeat a wide range of quarries. Knowledgeable, patient, and skilled hunters, these rangers hound man, beast, and monster alike, gaining insight into the way of the predator, skill in varied environments, and ever more lethal martial prowess. While some track man-eating creatures to protect the frontier, others pursue more cunning game—even fugitives among their own people.
Alignment: Any.
Hit Die: d10.
Class Skills
The ranger's class skills are Climb (Str), Craft (Int), Handle Animal (Cha), Heal (Wis), Intimidate (Cha), Knowledge (dungeoneering) (Int), Knowledge (geography) (Int), Knowledge (nature) (Int), Perception (Wis), Profession (Wis), Ride (Dex), Spellcraft (Int), Stealth (Dex), Survival (Wis), and Swim (Str).Skill Ranks per Level: 6 + Int modifier.
Can you identify which one is fluff and which one is mechanics?
if you have a 7 Chr your going to look or act like you belong in the movie the hills have eyes, not a boy band.
Citation, please? Also, Charisma =/= physical attractiveness and/or beauty. At least, I sure hope not.
Meanwhile, Amiri the barbarian is physically hot and tantalizing. Her Charisma is on the bottom side of average (10 vs 11).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
An INT of 7 is a -2. They are only 10% dumber than the average person. We are NOT in "Hulk smash puny human" territory.
A -7 CHA, even if we assume controls your physical appearance, is only 10% uglier than "average". So, not being able to even make the Diplomacy check is suspect, to me.
An INT of 7 is a -2. They are only 10% dumber than the average person. We are NOT in "Hulk smash puny human" territory.
A -7 CHA, even if we assume controls your physical appearance, is only 10% uglier than "average". So, not being able to even make the Diplomacy check is suspect, to me.
Finally, reason! :D
Also, when this is 10 Charisma you'd apparently have Charisma to burn before you get ugly.
I mean, look at those piercing eyes, that sexy toned body, those fine features and angles, and the gorgeous beauty unmarred by makeup. Rawr.
Of course, Charisma =/= Beauty but there you have it. :P
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Circumstances influence starting attitude.
No arguments there. I'm more than happy to adjust starting attitude due to racial or political prejudices, how a character is dressed or armed, or whether the character has just kicked the NPC's puppy.
I do not think "charisma score" is a "circumstance" that should affect starting attitude. For starters, ability score modifiers are not circumstance modifiers.
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.
Carrying capacity is defined as being a separate and specific function of strength, as in:
"You apply your character's strength modifier to:
-(Attacks and skills).
-Strength checks (from breaking down doors and the like).
Your character's strength score determines your carrying capacity."
Starting attitude is a mechanical construct similar to carrying capacity. If charisma was intended to affect starting attitude, it would also be listed as a separate and specific function of charisma, especially in a passive & automatic manner without a check as you appear to be using it (you're not calling for a Cha check to modify starting attitude, you're just kinda winging it).
The fact that the charisma section does not say "Your character's charisma score determines an NPC's starting reaction" or even "Your character's charisma score may affect an NPC's starting reaction" suggests that it is not intended to do so.
This is reinforced by the fact that there is no charisma-based effect on starting attitude mentioned in (1) the Diplomacy section, where it talks about NPC attitude or (2) game modules that list NPC starting attitudes. Also, the fact that the Relationship optional rules in Ultimate Campaign do specify that your Cha score determines your starting relationship (different from starting attitude) further supports the idea that if Cha was meant to have a passive, automatic effect on the starting attitude it would be mentioned somewhere.
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.
No it is not. The other side is saying that charisma checks should not be used to determine starting attitude. They are not saying that Diplomacy should be used for anything other than temporarily changing NPC attitude (with a minute), making requests, or gathering information.
Meanwhile, you're adding functions to charisma that are not in the ability description.
I would rather discuss positions actually put forth by people.
So would I. Would you like to start?
I have a sentece in the book that describe what the int stat represent. "learning and reason"
You have nothing to back up your "I want it to represent my lack of formal education", where is the rule for that?
There's not one. There's the mechanics. The mechanics dictate what is. What is is having less skill points and penalties to certain checks. Just like there is no rule saying that your character is stupid for having a low Intelligence, or a rule that has anything to do with learning or reasoning beyond the existing mechanics.
That senstence is the fluff, is the fluff for the int stat, your fluff is against it.
The entirety of the fluff for the monk class is against the mechanics. What is your point?
You can refluff whatever if it is fine for you and your group but do not try to present it as it was the way to do it.
I'm not silly. I'm saying there is no wrong way to eat a Reese's.
"learning and reasoning", if you character have int 7 he shoudl not be good at learning and reasoning.
Which does nothing beyond the penalties that are already in place.
learning: You character do not learn at the same rate of other rangers. A fact. You have two rangers in one group, in the same conditions the one with int 10 will learn new skill at a higher rate that the one with lower int. A fact. A rule.
That's right. You do have less skill points. That's the result of having a lower Int score. But it could be less about being "omg stoopid" and be lots of things such as lack of ambition, being prone to growing bored with things and not finishing or practicing as rigorously, etc, etc, etc. As long as the result is the same. Less skill points and penalties to certain skills.
Telling someone how to play their character is none of your business as long as they are following the rules.
Where is the rule backing your position by the way?
What position is that? The "mental ability scores are vague and players have the right to describe their characters as long as they are taking their bonuses and penalties into account" position?
The "the mechanics matter, fluff is mutable" position?
The "there is no rule saying you can't play tactically if your character has a penalty to skill point acquisition" position?
The "Charisma does not equate to physical beauty" position?
The "Arbitrarily raising or lowering DCs to double reward or double penalize or metagaming ability scores is stupid" position?
The "let people play what they want as long as they are following the rules so everyone can shut up and have a good time" position?
The "Amiri is a hotsauce barbarian and a strong woman, which I find amazingly sexy" position?
Or the "there's fluff, there's mechanics, and then there's no rule saying humans don't transform into tarrasques at will, so stick to what the rules actually do" position?
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bt if you try to say other people are donig it wrong for wanting a correspondence between fluff and mechanics, well, you sound silly.
Problem IMO comes when "wanting correspondence between fluff and mechanics" becomes "adding houseruled penalties beyond the RAW" or even worse "play your character as I think you should".
If you say that your ranger was born in the linnorn kidgdom and have never visit another placer, but your ranger have jungle as his favorite terrain and a jaguar as his aniamal companion then the fluff of the character is against his mechanics.
Does he have a reason?
Bt if you try to say other people are donig it wrong for wanting a correspondence between fluff and mechanics, well, you sound silly.
I haven't said anyone is doing it wrong. Can't you get that through your skull, Nicos?
|
|
Carrying capacity is defined as being a separate and specific function of strength, as in:"You apply your character's strength modifier to:
-(Attacks and skills).
-Strength checks (from breaking down doors and the like).
Your character's strength score determines your carrying capacity."
So is charisma used to for checks to influence, as in:
"You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:
-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."
Influence others means...
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel's position, that is the "the mechanics matter, fluff is mutable" and "let people play what they want as long as they are following the rules so everyone can shut up and have a good time" positions, expand the range of possible characters. Any concept is allowed, so long as the mechanics are followed. For example, you can play a ranger who is neither a scout, tracker, nor bounty hunter.
The position of strictly interpreting the fluff for ability scores (or just strictly interpreting fluff in general), on the other, limits the number of possible characters. If you go with this approach, all druids must have a lot of willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. It's not allowed (without building a completely mechanically incompetent character) to roleplay a druid who is more analytically minded than intuitive, whose long years among dusty tomes and alone in the wild has dulled their common sense and awareness among other people.
Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you gives you more freedom in roleplay?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ashiel's position, that is the "the mechanics matter, fluff is mutable" and "let people play what they want as long as they are following the rules so everyone can shut up and have a good time" positions, expand the range of possible characters. Any concept is allowed, so long as the mechanics are followed. For example, you can play a ranger who is neither a scout, tracker, nor bounty hunter.
The position of strictly interpreting the fluff for ability scores (or just strictly interpreting fluff in general), on the other, limits the number of possible characters. If you go with this approach, all druids must have a lot of willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. It's not allowed (without building a completely mechanically incompetent character) to roleplay a druid who is more analytically minded than intuitive, whose long years among dusty tomes and alone in the wild has dulled their common sense and awareness among other people.
Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you gives you more freedom in roleplay?
I <3 you so much right now. You totally get it. :O
Bt if you try to say other people are donig it wrong for wanting a correspondence between fluff and mechanics, well, you sound silly.Problem IMO comes when "wanting correspondence between fluff and mechanics" becomes "adding houseruled penalties beyond the RAW" or even worse "play your character as I think you should".
Another soul that can understand. Always glad when one of those appear.
*Cheers for Ashiel* Honestly , i gave up on people here already lols , good luck XD.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except what is fluff and what is mechanics is an ever moving target which seems to depend on what side of the discussion some people are currently on.
Any chance you could give an example? (?_?)\ *scratch scratch*
To me it is as such.
Fluff: A narrative description that gives an idea for what the mechanics are doing. Fluff is not rules.
Crunch: What the mechanics are actually doing independent of fluff. Crunch is rules.
Sometimes the two reach a great disconnect, such as when Nicos uses an example of a ranger from a cold climate with a jaguar and jungle favored terrain. Presumably with no fluff given by the ranger player to explain the apparent dissonance. However, if the ranger had a reason for being experienced in dealing with a jungle and why he would have a pet jaguar, that could be all that is required to end the dissonance.
Fluffing and refluffing your crunch is generally encouraged as good roleplaying. For example, a rogue that describes her unarmed sneak attack as a merciless shot to the kidneys is fluffing her bonus damage in a narrative way. She could flavor her rogue as a dirty back-alleyway street fighter who had no qualms about throwing dirt in your eyes before beating the ever loving crap out of you with multiple shots to the neck, spine, groin, guts, etc. All are just fluffing examples that are flavoring +1d6 sneak attack damage.
Nothing in the actual crunch says you have to kick someone in the cooch to deal sneak attack damage. It's just the way the player is fluffing her damage. Likewise, the same player could flavor her sneak attacks not like vicious dirty fighting that is violently unrefined but effective and could instead play a fencer who took careful and precise strikes towards vitals to maximize an otherwise elegant strike.
Just 2 coppers. :)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except what is fluff and what is mechanics is an ever moving target which seems to depend on what side of the discussion some people are currently on.
Oh, cool. Are we talking about moving targets now?
I would rather discuss positions actually put forth by people.So would I. Would you like to start?
...you refuse to give me any hard and fast answer...
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.
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.
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.
But what is the check? Because you're claiming that one line is the RAW that allows you use Charisma to set initial reactions, but then you appear to be winging it on the actual implementation.
Basically, party meets NPC. NPC's initial reaction to each party member is based on their Charisma and any other circumstances (drawn weapons, racial prejudice, etc.). Is that right? And if so, how does Charisma enter in to the equation? Is it a straight Charisma check for each PC? Opposed, or if not, what is the DC?
---
"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?
I have quoted that line in four separate posts in this thread; I am not ignoring it. You have been asked to give an example of how you would use a Charisma check to set starting attitude at least seven times.
The closest I've gotten to a response is this:
All of that depends on the circumstances. I personally don't generally roll dice to see if an NPC thinks a 20 Charisma person seems more interesting that a 6 Charisma PC, in the same way I don't roll dice to see if you can pick up a cup.
Which basically amounts to "the rules say I can use a Charisma check to determine starting attitude, but I don't want to roll the dice, so I'll just determine the outcome myself. This is RAW because 'Checks that represent attempts to influence others.'"
Is there a reason why you will not tell me how you would implement any of these Charisma checks you are fighting so hard to uphold?
You want Charisma to mean something more mechanically but you won't say what you want those mechanics to be. Is starting attitude an opposed check? Is it a straight Charisma check? If so, what's the DC?
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The interesting thing for me is I've seen the reverse more often; that is, someone will downplay their physical stat in their description or RP. Mostly I've seen this in online play.
An example might be someone with incredible strength, usually female, who is described as a delicate flower of girlhood with curves and all soft, yet she can bench press a truck.
I think the main problem folks have with it is that it feels like (even if it isn't) that you are trying to get the best of both words: you'd like to maximize your stats and dump another, but you'd prefer not to suffer unduly for it. Sure, you have lower than average Charisma or Intelligent, but you'd rather not be a drooling moron or socially uncouth. That can upset people who'd prefer to see the sheet represent a bit more of your character. No, not everyone with a lower stat is a drooly or unclean, but it's surprising how many are smart for their score or pretty or whatever. Given the remarks in the threads, it's almost suspect.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I <3 you so much right now. You totally get it. :OAshiel's position, that is the "the mechanics matter, fluff is mutable" and "let people play what they want as long as they are following the rules so everyone can shut up and have a good time" positions, expand the range of possible characters. Any concept is allowed, so long as the mechanics are followed. For example, you can play a ranger who is neither a scout, tracker, nor bounty hunter.
The position of strictly interpreting the fluff for ability scores (or just strictly interpreting fluff in general), on the other, limits the number of possible characters. If you go with this approach, all druids must have a lot of willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. It's not allowed (without building a completely mechanically incompetent character) to roleplay a druid who is more analytically minded than intuitive, whose long years among dusty tomes and alone in the wild has dulled their common sense and awareness among other people.
Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you gives you more freedom in roleplay?
Didn't you just tell me I can't play a low Charisma character who has low Charisma because of a disfiguring scar, but has no psychological problems with it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bt if you try to say other people are donig it wrong for wanting a correspondence between fluff and mechanics, well, you sound silly.Problem IMO comes when "wanting correspondence between fluff and mechanics" becomes "adding houseruled penalties beyond the RAW" or even worse "play your character as I think you should".
Just going to second this once more.
Like I said in my previous post, I don't think many people object to the notion that Int 7 should overall be less intelligent than Int 10. It's when you get down to questions like "How much stupider?" and "How should that effect roleplay?" that things get thorny.
Pretty much any time the issue of how the Int score relates to actual intelligence/IQ comes up, we see a wide variety of opinions on how smart/dumb a given score should be. Heck, over the course of this thread I've seen opinions on Int 7 ranging from "Dull and slow to learn, but relatively normal" to "Suffering from mental retardation."
Even putting aside all the problems of imposing heavy roleplaying restrictions to begin with, how can those kinds of restrictions ever be used when nobody can even agree what the ability scores mean outside of their raw mechanics?
|
|
@redward - First off this post responded to you directly regarding that exact question, so pretending I didn't respond is crap.
Second it says, in the rules, Charisma applies to checks that represent attempts to influence others.
It says that.
In the rules.
Under Charisma.
Separate from skill checks.
When determining what influences others that does not fall under skill checks, would you choose not use it?
Which is what you are advocating.
Do I need to list "Strength checks" as well?
I would say that I am sorry the developers didn't spell out the DC for every possible interaction with an NPC that could occur, but actually that would be incredibly bad design.
Why do you feel that I have the burden of explaining why I am not ignoring what the rule says?
The question to me is why are you ignoring it?
Just going to second this once more.
Like I said in my previous post, I don't think many people object to the notion that Int 7 should overall be less intelligent than Int 10. It's when you get down to questions like "How much stupider?" and "How should that effect roleplay?" that things get thorny.
Pretty much any time the issue of how the Int score relates to actual intelligence/IQ comes up, we see a wide variety of opinions on how smart/dumb a given score should be. Heck, over the course of this thread I've seen opinions on Int 7 ranging from "Dull and slow to learn, but relatively normal" to "Suffering from mental retardation."
Even putting aside all the problems of imposing heavy roleplaying restrictions to begin with, how can those kinds of restrictions ever be used when nobody can even agree what the ability scores mean outside of their raw mechanics?
Pretty much.
It is the same thing we got with the aligments for an example. The idea is there , but there are no RAW perfect explaining rules to tell how exactly it should be roleplayed. It is an idea , fluff it the way you like it.
So it will fall to the GM together with the player to decide.
|
|
Even putting aside all the problems of imposing heavy roleplaying restrictions to begin with, how can those kinds of restrictions ever be used when nobody can even agree what the ability scores mean outside of their raw mechanics?
And again, it isn't just about restrictions.
It is also about not rewarding the person who actually invested in the ability score.
If your solution is "Well, it's a grey area so let's just ignore it" I ask you if selecting monsters is a grey area. How about selecting the motivations of the BBEG? The setting?
If you choose to ignore personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance in your game and you enjoy it, great for you and yours.
But it is ludicrous to say it is to much of a grey area in a game where the GM literally decides what exists and how they act in nearly every respect beyond the players in the game.
Didn't you just tell me I can't play a low Charisma character who has low Charisma because of a disfiguring scar, but has no psychological problems with it?
I haven't said anything to you at all, actually. But if you want to wanted to fluff your lower Charisma being due to having a disfiguring scar that would be up to you.
I would find that it has some mechanical/fluff dissonance which means I would have a harder time swallowing it since a scar should have no effect on being able to use magic devices, nor would it penalize anything the moment the scar was not present (such as when you are under the effects of a disguise self spell, or a polymorph subschool effect), but it's not my character, it's yours, and it seems to make sense to you and isn't going to disrupt my game at all if you're still applying the penalty even when you're polymorphed.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@redward - First off this post responded to you directly regarding that exact question, so pretending I didn't respond is crap.
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?
That you consider that an answer to "How a Charisma check would work, whether it would be opposed, or what a DC might be", would set off huge red flags for me as a player.
Player: "Hey, I've got my character in mind. He's kind of ugly and off-putting, but he's going to have a ton of ranks in social skills and maybe a Skill Focus or two. I want him to be kind of a non-traditional face."
GM: "Well, just so you know, your Charisma is still going to have an effect in social situations regardless of your skill."
Player: "Oh. Okay. Could you elaborate? I want to know how it will effect what I want to accomplish."
GM: "Sure:
- Charisma 'almost certainly' won't be a factor dealing with service professionals.
- Your Charisma be 'may or may not be' sufficient for a random stranger to allow you a minute of their time for Diplomacy.
- Charisma 'might' allow someone to give you a full minute to Intimidate.
Player: "So, those are Charisma checks that I would make?"
GM: "I don't generally roll dice to see if an NPC thinks a 20 Charisma person seems more interesting that a 6 Charisma PC."
Player: "So you'll just...decide if my Charisma is high enough?"
GM: "Charisma checks are allowed, it's in the rules!"
Player: "Okay, so what's the Charisma check I need to see if someone will talk to me?"
GM: "I already told you!"
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is charisma used to for checks to influence, as in:
"You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:
-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."Influence others means...
Oxford Dictionary: Influence: to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something.
To have an effect on (influence) something, you are changing a starting point. If you are influencing someone's attitude, you start with their starting attitude. You do not make a check to see where point A is; you make a check to see if you can get to point B.
Moreover, it is unreasonable to claim that just because checks to influence others are generally charisma checks, any attempt to influence others may be achieved by a charisma check. For example, it is not supported in RAW that you may change a person's alignment ("have an effect on their character") by making a Cha check.
I would say that I am sorry the developers didn't spell out the DC for every possible interaction with an NPC that could occur, but actually that would be incredibly bad design.
Of course not, but they give a general set of guidelines in the rules for social skills, and they also note starting attitude as a relevant mechanic (analagous, as you pointed out, to carrying capacity to being a related mechanic to str/dex skills). However, while they clearly indicated that Str determines carrying capacity according to a chart, they did not mention "starting attitude can be determined by a charisma check." Further, examples of starting attitudes in published modules give a flat starting attitude rather than stating "with a DC X charisma check, NPC's starting attitude is helpful."
You want links?
Yes! After all, when you claimed "no one has responded to my point about how charisma checks are used to influence people " I gave you a link to a post responding to that point. Then, given a link, rather than respond to my points you simply re-iterated yours.
(On re-reading, I realize you wanted references to specific lines in the rules that demonstrate the listed checks were in fact Cha checks. Here you go:)
@redward - First off this post responded to you directly regarding that exact question, so pretending I didn't respond is crap.
You responded with an evasion. redward asked you for a DC. You said: "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."
That is not a DC. Checks should have DCs. If you are arguing that "Charisma modifies checks made to influence people" means that "Charisma determines starting attitude," you should provide a DC.
If you're not rolling a check, it's because the DC is so low as to be automatic, as in the picking up a cup example or hearing a pitched battle right next to you. But a check should have a DC, and it should have numerical modifiers (is being from a distrusted race a -2 penalty? -5?).
Starting attitude currently doesn't have any DCs or modifiers described, probably because it's not intended to involve a check.
The entirety of the fluff for the monk class is against the mechanics. What is your point?
To be fair, that's just bad class design.
To be fair, that's just bad class design.
I agree with you on that Weirdo. It still makes for a great example because it shows the difference between fluff and crunch. :P
You can recite fluff at the table all day long but you roll a d20 to actually punch the orc in the junk. :P
|
|
Player: "Hey, I've got my character in mind. He's kind of ugly and off-putting, but he's going to have a ton of ranks in social skills and maybe a Skill Focus or two. I want him to be kind of a non-traditional face."
GM: "Well, just so you know, your Charisma is still going to have an effect in social situations regardless of your skill."
Player: "Oh. Okay. Could you elaborate? I want to know how it will effect what I want to accomplish."
GM: "Sure:Charisma 'almost certainly' won't be a factor dealing with service professionals.
Your Charisma be 'may or may not be' sufficient for a random stranger to allow you a minute of their time for Diplomacy.
Charisma 'might' allow someone to give you a full minute to Intimidate.Player: "So, those are Charisma checks that I would make?"
GM: "I don't generally roll dice to see if an NPC thinks a 20 Charisma person seems more interesting that a 6 Charisma PC."
Player: "So you'll just...decide if my Charisma is high enough?"
GM: "Charisma checks are allowed, it's in the rules!"
Player: "Okay, so what's the Charisma check I need to see if someone will talk to me?"
GM: "I already told you!"
So what you are saying is that you want skills to do more than they list in the skill, but have ability scores do less than they list.
Here is the how that role play would actually go with me. I'll answer and you reply.
Player: "Hey, I've got my character in mind. He's kind of ugly and off-putting, but he's going to have a ton of ranks in social skills and maybe a Skill Focus or two. I want him to be kind of a non-traditional face."
GM: "Well, just so you know, your Charisma is still going to have an effect in social situations regardless of your skill."
Player: "Oh. Okay. Could you elaborate? I want to know how it will effect what I want to accomplish."
GM: "Sure. Your charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. So we will need to discuss how that manifests in your character. What did you have in mind to reflect your charisma score? Is it the Ugly or something else?"
|
|
So is charisma used to for checks to influence, as in:
"You apply your character's Charisma modifier to:
-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."Influence others means...
Oxford Dictionary: Influence: to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something.
To have an effect on (influence) something, you are changing a starting point.
Is the bolded part from the dictionary, because I'm pretty sure it isn't.
"to have an effect on the character, development, or behaviour of someone or something."
I agree with. My charisma influences how people view me. My personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance are all factors that will influence others.
Player: "Hey, I've got my character in mind. He's kind of ugly and off-putting, but he's going to have a ton of ranks in social skills and maybe a Skill Focus or two. I want him to be kind of a non-traditional face."
GM: "Well, just so you know, your Charisma is still going to have an effect in social situations regardless of your skill."
Player: "Oh. Okay. Could you elaborate? I want to know how it will effect what I want to accomplish."
GM: "Sure:Charisma 'almost certainly' won't be a factor dealing with service professionals.
Your Charisma be 'may or may not be' sufficient for a random stranger to allow you a minute of their time for Diplomacy.
Charisma 'might' allow someone to give you a full minute to Intimidate.Player: "So, those are Charisma checks that I would make?"
GM: "I don't generally roll dice to see if an NPC thinks a 20 Charisma person seems more interesting that a 6 Charisma PC."
Player: "So you'll just...decide if my Charisma is high enough?"
GM: "Charisma checks are allowed, it's in the rules!"
Player: "Okay, so what's the Charisma check I need to see if someone will talk to me?"
GM: "I already told you!"So what you are saying is that you want skills to do more than they list in the skill, but have ability scores do less than they list.
Here is the how that role play would actually go with me. I'll answer and you reply.
Player: "Hey, I've got my character in mind. He's kind of ugly and off-putting, but he's going to have a ton of ranks in social skills and maybe a Skill Focus or two. I want him to be kind of a non-traditional face."
GM: "Well, just so you know, your Charisma is still going to have an effect in social situations regardless of your skill."
Player: "Oh. Okay. Could you elaborate? I want to know how it will effect what I want to accomplish."
GM: "Sure. Your charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. So we will need to discuss how that manifests in your...
Player: OK. How does that work, you know, the crunch?
Your routinely cite one line in the definition of Charisma. It indicates what Charisma is used for, but not how it is used. That lack of a mechanic is, to me, the difference between fluff and crunch. You want to use fluff to control some aspect of the game? Fine, by all means. Please back it up with a mechanic from RAW, otherwise known as crunch. People want to use Charisma correctly, but your repeating a line of fluff and saying that gives the GM carte blanche to rule any way they want makes everyone think you are doing RAI with house rules and not RAW.
A number of times someone has asked for you to provide something. A recent reply was:
@redward - First off this post responded to you directly regarding that exact question, so pretending I didn't respond is crap.
I looked at that post, and redward's cited text was a question, yet your text starts out claiming redward was arguing for something. You then show you disagree to something that was not even actually written. Doing that does not help your case.
/cevah
|
|
The question I ask every player about charisma is "How do you want it to manifest?"
I think redward is trying to get me to pin down some save DC's for a circumstance that has no specific DC anywhere. As many, many things have no specific DC anywhere.
The example provided from Ultimate campaign regarding kingdom starting attitude (kingdoms having no charisma, unlike players and NPCs) provides no DC, just things to consider. Because that is what starting attitude it about. You as a GM consider all the factors and decide what the NPC would do.
If you tell me your 18 Charisma manifests with you being gorgeous, I will makes sure the NPCs view you that way. If you say it makes you seem interesting and like a good leader, I will have the NPCs view you that way.
You get to decide how it manifest. It is your character.
But you don't get to have it not manifest. You don't get to ignore the line saying it is used to influence people, or that it says that it effects personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love watching ciretose and ashiel fight. Dictionaries get thrown around, words like "why" get twisted into odd shapes and in the end you half expect them to throw everything to the ground roll around for a bit atop the combined works of paizo and make a hate baby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't fully jump back into this debate because I'd wind up in a straitjacket before I even get four posts out, but just wanted to point out that when you decide NPCs that would normally be indifferent are initially unfriendly just because a player has a -2 Cha modifier:
The player effectively suffers an additional -5 penalty to Diplomacy checks made to improve the NPC's attitude above and beyond his regular Cha penalty, and if he fails by 5+ the NPC becomes hostile.
The player cannot even attempt the most basic request of the NPC - such as asking for simple advice or directions - without taking 1 minute to try and get lucky enough to successfully improve the NPC's attitude to indifferent.
Make of that what you will. I think its relevant to how one should drop their own interpretation and GM fiat on the game.
I love watching ciretose and ashiel fight. Dictionaries get thrown around, words like "why" get twisted into odd shapes and in the end you half expect them to throw everything to the ground roll around for a bit atop the combined works of paizo and make a hate baby.
Ahem. :)
I can't fully jump back into this debate because I'd wind up in a straitjacket before I even get four posts out, but just wanted to point out that when you decide NPCs that would normally be indifferent are initially unfriendly just because a player has a -2 Cha modifier:
The player effectively suffers an additional -5 penalty to Diplomacy checks made to improve the NPC's attitude above and beyond his regular Cha penalty, and if he fails by 5+ the NPC becomes hostile.
The player cannot even attempt the most basic request of the NPC - such as asking for simple advice or directions - without taking 1 minute to try and get lucky enough to successfully improve the NPC's attitude to indifferent.
Make of that what you will. I think its relevant to how one should drop their own interpretation and GM fiat on the game.
Unfriendly may be a bit too much, but I can certainly see people pointing and laughing at - possibly even shunning - the character with the really ugly face/scar/speech impediment. Having trouble asking for simple advice and directions - with a low enough CHA that would actually be a possibility. I think the question is how low it'd have to be to have a noticeable rules effect or whether to just RP it, and as with any such thing that's pretty much up to the individual GM to decide.
Didn't you just tell me I can't play a low Charisma character who has low Charisma because of a disfiguring scar, but has no psychological problems with it?I haven't said anything to you at all, actually. But if you want to wanted to fluff your lower Charisma being due to having a disfiguring scar that would be up to you.
Sorry, it certainly seemed like your posts were not just random musings:
...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?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?
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).
...
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.
None of that was directed to the post I made earlier? Not even your support of Kazaan who was replying to my post had anything to do with me? Okay, just making sure.
Anyway, onto the subject:
So why do scars and deformities cause Charisma penalties and/or damage?
Even if that weren't the case, how does Charisma interact with social skills? My original point was:
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?
Surely it must be in some way perceptible, right? If it was not perceptible, how does it add to your interactions with NPCs? Or are you telling me that they just find the NPC with an 18 Charisma to be strangely more compelling than other NPCs for unknown reasons? It's not like the NPC is speaking in a more cunning fashion. That would be intelligence and there is a class feature and another for that. Same for Wisdom.
In any case, I just thought it was interesting. Having a low intelligence because of none of that thar book lernin, is fine. Oh no, he's not slow to learn and is actually quite sharp. He just earns skill points much more slowly than a normal person of his field on top of having penalties in all Int based skills. No biggie. Wouldn't affect someone's day to day life at all! Especially if they were in some kind of profession or craft field.
Having a scar on your face for low charisma, on the other hand, is dissonant with the mechanics. Who would've thought?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love watching ciretose and ashiel fight. Dictionaries get thrown around, words like "why" get twisted into odd shapes and in the end you half expect them to throw everything to the ground roll around for a bit atop the combined works of paizo and make a hate baby.Ahem. :)
Two androgynous dudes rubbing swords together till they get hot?
Ohhhhhhhh the innuendo is strong with this one.
But seriously I'm with WRoy I rather like my sanity too much to be serious in this.
My biggest issue with the idea of scar = low Charisma (and I would tell my player such as well to see if he didn't want to rethink it) is that Charisma affects a lot of stuff. It affects the music you play, the way you sing, how scary you can be, how socially gifted you are, how strong your force of will itself can be (which you see when you're basically mind-screwing people with charm effects or planar binding), it affects how good you are at acting or lying, and the power of your sorcery or spell-like abilities, and finally it's a MENTAL statistic.
I mean, what happens when your appearance changes, or you are reincarnated with an entirely new body, or you get a regenerate spell to restore your flesh, or a bard, paladin, or sorcerer are covered in scars from their experiences adventuring and/or getting to danger?
I could get over it, but all the players I know would probably consider something a bit more than a scar to represent their Charisma penalties, even if it was just something as simple as having their will somewhat diminished from their scar (such as becoming more self conscious than they would have otherwise been). But I probably wouldn't push the issue if they were really adamant about it.
I love watching ciretose and ashiel fight. Dictionaries get thrown around, words like "why" get twisted into odd shapes and in the end you half expect them to throw everything to the ground roll around for a bit atop the combined works of paizo and make a hate baby.Ahem. :)Two androgynous dudes rubbing swords together till they get hot?
Ohhhhhhhh the innuendo is strong with this one.
But seriously I'm with WRoy I rather like my sanity too much to be serious in this.
Heh, indeed. And it just seemed like a fun excuse to link a fun video from an old PS2 game. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I could get over it, but all the players I know would probably consider something a bit more than a scar to represent their Charisma penalties, even if it was just something as simple as having their will somewhat diminished from their scar (such as becoming more self conscious than they would have otherwise been). But I probably wouldn't push the issue if they were really adamant about it.
Personally, I'd be the same. A charisma low enough to warrant a negative penalty is probably more than a scar. In ye olden days before we had skills, I'd have probably deducted a single charisma point for gaining a permanent facial scar. Now even that much is questionable, and is probably more a case of giving that character a -1 or -2 CHA circumstance penalty whenever attempting something where the visual impact of that scar matters (and arguably +1 or +2 CHA when dealing with people for whom a scar is a positive badge of some kind.)
Of course, if we had a separate appearance stat, we'd have none of these problems ;) (Indeed, we'd have a whole slew of new problems with people arguing about how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc!)
My biggest issue with the idea of scar = low Charisma (and I would tell my player such as well to see if he didn't want to rethink it) is that Charisma affects a lot of stuff. It affects the music you play, the way you sing, how scary you can be, how socially gifted you are, how strong your force of will itself can be (which you see when you're basically mind-screwing people with charm effects or planar binding), it affects how good you are at acting or lying, and the power of your sorcery or spell-like abilities, and finally it's a MENTAL statistic.
I mean, what happens when your appearance changes, or you are reincarnated with an entirely new body, or you get a regenerate spell to restore your flesh, or a bard, paladin, or sorcerer are covered in scars from their experiences adventuring and/or getting to danger?
I could get over it, but all the players I know would probably consider something a bit more than a scar to represent their Charisma penalties, even if it was just something as simple as having their will somewhat diminished from their scar (such as becoming more self conscious than they would have otherwise been). But I probably wouldn't push the issue if they were really adamant about it.
Aside from spells, I would expect my appearance would have some kind of effect upon my social interactions. Whether that includes performing for a crowd or not. Spellcasting is a different beast. That's why Charisma can be defined in some ways as a sense of self. That, personality, etc are what make it a mental stat. However, it does say "appearance" in the ability description.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.
If my appearance changed, I imagine in your games nothing would happen. That's fine. That's RAW, but illogical. So, on the off chance that my character could possibly have his scar hidden for several rounds, I should scrap my concept or at least enjoy a nice little chat where you try to tell me that it doesn't fit mechanically. Even though, no where in the rules does it say that Charisma has to be defined purely by personality and mannerisms. Are you seeing the hypocrisy yet? Why would you want to go with a position that limits the possibilities for roleplay, rather than a position which gives you more freedom in roleplay? Because a character might temporarily change his appearance means that I shouldn't use a hideous scar to explain my characters Charisma dump in a flavorful way?
So how does Charisma add to Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc. exactly? Or I mean to the music you play, the way you sing, how scary you can be, how socially gifted you are, and so on? Is it in some sort of discernible way?
Personally, I'd be the same. A charisma low enough to warrant a negative penalty is probably more than a scar. In ye olden days before we had skills, I'd have probably deducted a single charisma point for gaining a permanent facial scar. Now even that much is questionable, and is probably more a case of giving that character a -1 or -2 CHA circumstance penalty whenever attempting something where the visual impact of that scar matters (and arguably +1 or +2 CHA when dealing with people for whom a scar is a positive badge of some kind.)
Of course, if we had a separate appearance stat, we'd have none of these problems ;) (Indeed, we'd have a whole slew of new problems with people arguing about how beauty is in the eye of the beholder, etc!)
But you guys! I've got a character whose concept doesn't fit neatly into the Charisma attribute. IF only I dumped intelligence instead. I could say I'm poorly read to account for my Int score low enough to warrant a negative penalty. Why must I be judged so unfairly!?
No, actually that all seems perfectly reasonable to me. Though, as I pointed out, Paizo published permanent Charisma penalties due to scars. So, it's not like there isn't an precedent. Still, I agree.