StuffPerhaps you have never been on the GM side of the screen? Or maybe you just have players who don't do things like this.
It's a subtle way of being passive/aggressive. A bit of mental judo.
If you speak at the table in honeyed words that your character doesn't know, you are setting the terms for any debate over what happened. If the GM says you tick the NPC off, you retaliate with 'what could she possibly be upset about? I didn't say anything she could get that upset over'. Then you demand the GM point out what upset her, so you can avoid it in the future. And yes, I have had players pull this before. Again, we are back to the Player using THEIR skills out of character rather than the CHARACTERS skills in character.
It's no different than a player who has a character who put no ranks into any knowledge skill using his own knowledge of the bestiary to choose his character's tactics. If you are trying to use your knowledge (of diplomacy, of the bestiary, of whatever) when your character has no reasonable way of knowing these things, then you are not roleplaying what you built at best, or cheating at worst.
I will return to my question, which nobody wants to answer honestly. If you want to play James Bond, why are you building Maxwell Smart on your character sheet?
I GM, frequently, more so then I get to play even though there is one other frequent GM in our group and 1-2 others who do so occasionally. Usurping a players agency over their characters actions is in my book one of the biggest and sadly most frequent mistakes a GM can make. You are reading into the player's action a lot of unnecessary baggage. If the player decides his character talks like James Bond and looks like Fabio that fine more power to him. The only time this is a problem is if the player thinks talking like James Bond supersedes his roll result (on the flip side of this GMs who attach significance to the words a Player uses rather than what the character rolled are also usurping player agency) or that looking like Fabio let him ignore the drawbacks of having 7 STR and CON.
So what is that player in your example doing? He's honestly trying to play a character who talks like James Bond, but ends up having his advances fail. Which is not surprisingly, exactly what he's playing.
|
The high charisma character already gets the + to skills that the system gives him. Granted it sucks as a bonus but if you are trying to even out all the choices in the system you are going to get SWARMED with things to do.
Or you can play it as written and have Charisma effect personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
All of which it would be difficult to argue would not effect how NPC's view them initially and in generally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do we "punish" a high charisma character by not giving them the benefits of the investment they made?
Because the vast majority of the games mechanics are based around blasting or beating trolls, demons, goblins and dragons over the head and being pretty doesn't help that.
And not one module or scenario designer seems to be reading it the same way you are. I see diplomacy checks out the whazoo but NOT charisma checks.
@BigNorseWolf True. But are you really going to iron out all the subpar choices in the game?
No, but neither am I going to invent or twist rules into something new to make the sub par choices better. What I can do is try to point out the mechanical problems and their solutions with the game as it is.
@BigNorseWolf I'm confused here. I'm trying to argue that charisma adds or subtracts specific stated bonuses/penalties from specific stated situations (such as skill checks and charisma checks)... You seemed to be saying that charisma should have more importance because physical stats seemed to be more important... If you werent argueing that point then I fail.
*headscratch* can't see where you're getting that.
I'm saying charisma is less important because
1) The game is more about beating things and looting their corpses than social interaction, so the social interaction stat loses prominence.
2) Charisma does almost nothing on its own if you're not a charisma based caster. Its primary function for non cha. based characters is to be a modifier to certain skills.
3) Even when social interaction comes up, the vast majority of social interaction can be done with skills. The flat bonus from charisma pales in comparison to skill ranks, traits, class features and magical doohickies that can obviate the minor penalties of a low charisma even if you want to do social skills.
In other words, this isn't a "Fair" or "Zero sum" game. Yes, charisma is punished. Its not really a why it just is.
|
|
I am playing it as written. The game tells me to add/subtract a specific number to/from a charisma check, skill check with key ability score charisma and of course tie it to classes that specifically use charisma.
You are trying to increase the value of the ability score because you think it is a weak ability score (no arguement here).
The game tells you Charisma effects personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
You are trying to say it doesn't.
Does your GM roll the wandering monster chart exclusively to determine what is next in the campaign. Does your GM play NPCs based on random dice rolls or logical understanding of what that NPC would do in that moment with those circumstances.
Circumstances that include the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of who they are interaction with.
It would be a weak ability score if you ignored all of that.
|
|
Why do we "punish" a high charisma character by not giving them the benefits of the investment they made?Because the vast majority of the games mechanics are based around blasting or beating trolls, demons, goblins and dragons over the head and being pretty doesn't help that.
And not one module or scenario designer seems to be reading it the same way you are. I see diplomacy checks out the whazoo but NOT charisma checks.
Diplomacy checks for specific things. Just like swim checks for specific things, etc...skills do what they say they do.
Using your example, I don't see a lot of modules or scenarios designers saying what the players need to do in any situation. Just an outline of what is going on and if specific skills are needed, what the check would be.
Using your example, I don't see a lot of modules or scenarios designers saying what the players need to do in any situation. Just an outline of what is going on and if specific skills are needed, what the check would be.
Are you reading any of the scenarios? I see calls for specific knowledge checks, skill checks, and diplomacy rolls left and right.
Season 5 is being called "year of the diplomat" for a reason... oodles of diplomacy checks. Raw charisma checks? not so much this season or any other I've read or played in.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, my reading shifted to skimming some time ago, but I'm seeing some common themes of misinformation perpetuated by folks who apparently haven't read a rule outside of the class/feat/spell chapters since 3.0, so let's see if we can set the record straight on the Pathfinder ruleset's view on ability scores and "dump stats".
Note: I'm talking about by-the-book, default-assumption Pathfinder here. You might treat it differently in your games, I might treat it differently in mine, the person you're yelling at might treat it yet a third way in theirs. This is just the Pathfinder default based on what's published. Keep that in mind when some stranger on the internet who isn't in your game posts a set of stats; don't assume they treat stats the same way you do. Either assume nothing (i.e., ask first or don't comment at all) or assume they're using the Pathfinder default.
Now, here's how unmodified Pathfinder handles dump stats:
The arrays:
In the Core Rulebook, we're given a default set of stats that the bulk of the population possess (before racial adjustments). The "basic" set (i.e., anyone who isn't "heroic" or better) is 13/12/11/10/9/8. This is the vast majority of the population. Then we have the "heroic" stats, for anyone between "basic" and "so special they're custom", which is 15/14/13/12/10/8 (again, before race).
To reiterate, everyone in the world who isn't a PC or someone so special as to have totally unique stats has either:
13/12/11/10/9/8, or
15/14/13/12/10/8.
These are the definition of normal people in Pathfinder.
So what can we learn from this?
Simple: any stat that is within that range is "normal", and any stat outside that range is "abnormal".
Examples of "normal":
• Dwarf fighter with 6 CHA.
• Gnome sorcerer with both 8 STR and 8 WIS, or with 10 WIS/6 STR.
• Human paladin with 8 INT.
Any of these are entirely normal people. Not mentally handicapped, not social outcasts, not cripples. These are normal people. These are ordinary parts of the world population. In fact, if we assume random distribution of available stats, each of the above examples represents fully one-sixth of the population of that race. Ordinary people. If NPCs are seeing folks with stats in accordance with the above but are reacting as though such people are different than what they deal with every day, you've deviated from the baseline and really should be working with your players to come to an understanding. Don't assume they're going to deviate in the same direction and to the same degree, and then get offended when they don't read your mind.
Now, the other side of the coin:
Examples of "abnormal":
• Anyone with a pre-racial 7 (or a post-racial 5).
• Anyone with a pre-racial 16+ (or a post racial 18+).
• Anyone without any pre-racial scores under 10.
• Anyone with multiple pre-racial 8s.
The game assumes that you'll have one area that you're weaker in. That's part of being a normal person as defined by the rules. When you have more or fewer such stats, or when that "low end" is really low, you start getting into "abnormal" territory. Just how abnormal isn't really defined, and that abnormality could be either good or bad. But when you make a PC with stats significantly outside the global norm, expect NPCs to regard you as someone who is significantly outside the global norm.
------------------------------------------------------
TLDR: I bet most folks would agree that somewhere there's a line between "normal" and "noticeably different", they just have different ideas of where that line is. How about if we start by at least being aware of the CRB's baseline, and then discuss where to go from there? That's what the book is there for.
|
|
@Jiggy - A dwarf who has the lowest stat also taking a penalty....
Dwarves are described as described as "a bit gruff"
So the Dwarf 6 would be on the very low end of average for a race that is considered specifically uncharismatic, or really charismatic for most other races.
Or notably uncharismatic to the general population. Probably exceptionally so to charismatic races, based on your explanation.
Correct?
Because that is what was said.
Why is it surprising that the statistic most closely associated with the role-playing aspect (Charisma) has the fewest rolls assigned in the book?
The usages of Charisma are crazy ciscumstantial.
What do you do when someone asks who the hottest elven barmaid is? What skill check is that?
It is entirely possible that the most attractive elven barmaid has a 7 Charisma. Charisma is not solely your physical appearance. There are a number of individuals who would not be generally considered attractive (whatever that standard is) that nonetheless are the same people who could deliver a fire and brimstone sermon, keep an army's morale high, or lead a personality cult.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Jiggy - A dwarf who has the lowest stat also taking a penalty....
Yep, one in six will be that way, statistically speaking.
Dwarves are described as described as "a bit gruff"
Yes. This is something I think a lot of folks forget: a race for whom one sixth of the population has 6 CHA, and for whom more than half the race has CHA somewhere in the single digits, is defined as "a bit gruff". A lot of the opinions I see in threads like these take the definition of that kind of CHA waaaaaaay past "a bit gruff".
So the Dwarf 6 would be on the very low end of average for a race that is considered specifically uncharismatic, or really charismatic for most other races.
I try to avoid the term "average" for this type of discussion, but yeah, of the six possible versions of "normal", 6 CHA is one of them (the lowest one). Once you hit 5 CHA, though, you're beyond the scope of "normal". Same if you manage to get Dwarfy's CHA up past 11 (as a commoner) or above 13 (as a hero). That would all be outside of "normal".
Correct?
Because that is what was said.
If I'm understanding your summary, yes. The 6 CHA dwarf is the low end of normal, for a dwarf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought she was charaisma 7 cause she slept with everyone but me.
The abstraction of stats doesn't translate into reality all that well. They cover many different things that are pretty separate, for example I have a low con in the sense that I can barely walk a mile without getting winded, but for disease resistance, poison resistance, blunt object to the head or tolerating extremes of environment I hit "why aren't you dead?" levels. I know some marathon runners that go down for a month every flu season.
There's no rules for separating physical appearance from personality. They're kind of welded together under the abstraction of charisma.
|
|
If I'm understanding your summary, yes. The 6 CHA dwarf is the low end of normal, for a dwarf.
Which would be exceptionally below normal for other races, correct? Meaning to other races, that Dwarf will be exceptionally charismatic while a 14 Charisma character would seem fairly impressive to a dwarf.
Which is the other end of the issue. Not rewarding investment.
Ciretoise,
We have a disagreement over how to read a rule. Lets leave it at that for the moment.
I don't see, anywhere, calls for charisma checks. I do see repeated calls for diplomacy checks, including to do things that would be done by raw charisma checks under your reading.
Hellknights feast: around 15 Diplomacy checks, including long term attempts to change someone's mind.
Missing heir: around 9 diplomacy checks
The Elven entanglement, a trip to the woods, has at least 4.
Can you cite any examples of these raw charisma checks that your reading would call for in these sorts of situations?
|
|
I think ciretose is diferentiating between the skills and ability scores. Just because someone has crap charisma doesn't mean they have crap diplomacy, they just grease palms to compensate. Same with low strength climbers with good equipment. Dumb people with books and time...
And pointing out that greasing palms and negotiating is not the same as being charismatic.
If I can talk you into doing something for me, that is not the same as you following me because of my charisma.
The 6 Charisma Barbarian may do tons of heroic things that make everyone who knows him, love him.
But to people who don't know about these things, he is a 6 charisma barbarian.
Similarly the 20 charisma bard may be a complete failure and despised by people who know him.
But to people who don't know him, he seems awesome.
Using diplomacy is using a specific skill to do a specific set of things listed under the skill. The things that aren't listed, aren't listed.
It is entirely possible that the most attractive elven barmaid has a 7 Charisma. Charisma is not solely your physical appearance. There are a number of individuals who would not be generally considered attractive (whatever that standard is) that nonetheless are the same people who could deliver a fire and brimstone sermon, keep an army's morale high, or lead a personality cult.
Possible? Maybe, but unlikely. That "most attractive elven barmaid" with a 7 Charisma probably isn't really all that attractive - she's just pretty. She may look OK, but without the personal magnetism, she probably doesn't carry herself very well and her personality would pretty much have to be terrible to have a net 7 despite being pleasant on the eyes - meaning that more bar patrons are probably attracted to that slightly dumpier barmaid with the crooked teeth who fills the room with her personality and leaves everyone smiling.
And that's the power of charisma as an abstract that combines appearance, magnetism, ability to lead, and personality. The character leaves people feeling they're the whole package because of the overall better impression. Spiking one high becomes immaterial because it's the overall impression that matters.
It is entirely possible that the most attractive elven barmaid has a 7 Charisma. Charisma is not solely your physical appearance. There are a number of individuals who would not be generally considered attractive (whatever that standard is) that nonetheless are the same people who could deliver a fire and brimstone sermon, keep an army's morale high, or lead a personality cult.Possible? Maybe, but unlikely. That "most attractive elven barmaid" with a 7 Charisma probably isn't really all that attractive - she's just pretty. She may look OK, but without the personal magnetism, she probably doesn't carry herself very well and her personality would pretty much have to be terrible to have a net 7 despite being pleasant on the eyes - meaning that more bar patrons are probably attracted to that slightly dumpier barmaid with the crooked teeth who fills the room with her personality and leaves everyone smiling.
And that's the power of charisma as an abstract that combines appearance, magnetism, ability to lead, and personality. The character leaves people feeling they're the whole package because of the overall better impression. Spiking one high becomes immaterial because it's the overall impression that matters.
I'm perfectly ok with you using "pretty" to describe the CHA 7 barmaid, rather than attractive. My point was merely that beautiful/handsome/whatever is not the sole determinant of Charisma, which you seem to agree with. The larger point was that a "pretty" to use your term barmaid with 7 CHA is possible, which you also seem in agreement with. No question that a less "pretty" person might be more "attractive" to most people thanks to overall impression.
|
|
@Ciretose
You are arguing from a "this is how I think the rules should be" perspective. Not a RAW perspective. The reason I say that is because investment does get rewarded. When I roll 1d20-2 for having charisma 6 I'm not going to roll the same as if I roll 1d20+5 for having charisma 20 (I could but on average charisma 20 is better). The reward is certainly small I agree but changing this means moving away from RAW.You have perfectly valid points when moving away from RAW but that isn't the same as saying that your way is the right way.
@Chris Lambertz Do people get notified when they have gone over the line or are their comments simply deleted?
No, I'm actually quoting what the rules say.
Half of my posts have been cut and paste.