My point was that it is RAW the only way to influence attitude and yes you would have to go through a full minute of interaction. I have never suggested otherwise. Again, if you want to influence someone's attitude (well any non-player character's attitude) the check is diplomacy. A Charisma check will do nothing for you (until I get those rules for doing so).
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Which would be exceptionally below normal for other races, correct?
If I'm understanding your summary, yes. The 6 CHA dwarf is the low end of normal, for a dwarf.
Yes - while 6 CHA is within the bounds of "normal" for a dwarf, it reaches into "abnormal" for other races. Isn't that why dwarves are described as "a bit gruff" when the other races aren't?
• Dwarves are "a bit gruff", other races aren't.• Dwarves can hit 6 CHA, other races can't.
I'm currently guessing the two are connected. Is there an alternative you're wanting to propose? Or were you just verifying what I was saying?
Which is the other end of the issue. Not rewarding investment.
I'm not sure what you mean. Keep in mind I haven't really read the last couple of pages of this thread, so I don't know what trains of thought you might have been in the middle of when I posted my wall of text. :)
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.
The game doesn't have to bake in places where the charisma check must be made - as long as the GM feels none of the skills really applies, the fact that stats mention ability checks is pretty much enough.
This is one place where the Pathfinder one-book model compared to the PH/DMG model of D&D might work against PF. The 3.5 DMG has the space to go into the difference between a skill check and a stat check and when a stat check may be more appropriate (not level-dependent, no specific skill or saving throw type applies). PF doesn't really have to the room to cover it in depth, but it's short hop to get there once you read the description of Charisma and see that it's used for rolls to influence people.
|
Which would be exceptionally below normal for other races, correct?
If I'm understanding your summary, yes. The 6 CHA dwarf is the low end of normal, for a dwarf.Yes - while 6 CHA is within the bounds of "normal" for a dwarf, it reaches into "abnormal" for other races. Isn't that why dwarves are described as "a bit gruff" when the other races aren't?
• Dwarves are "a bit gruff", other races aren't.
• Dwarves can hit 6 CHA, other races can't.
I'm currently guessing the two are connected. Is there an alternative you're wanting to propose? Or were you just verifying what I was saying?Which is the other end of the issue. Not rewarding investment.I'm not sure what you mean. Keep in mind I haven't really read the last couple of pages of this thread, so I don't know what trains of thought you might have been in the middle of when I posted my wall of text. :)
What I mean is if you take a position that the 6 charisma dwarf should not be viewed as gruff (not saying you are) than you are also saying indirectly that the 14 charisma Halfling should not be viewed as notably charismatic to non-halflings.
There is often discussion of punishment for acknowledging charisma impacts personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. What is less discussed it seems is that you also reward those who do invest in charisma by actually taking personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance into consideration as a GM with NPC interactions.
|
|
@Ciretose Yes. You are quoting the rules. But so are the rest of us. You quote one specific line, namely "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
The line is
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.
If "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." only meant skill checks, it would be redundant to have it under the listed skills. If it were only referring to specific spells, you would have similar entries under any ability that can be impacted by spells (Int and Wis both have examples)
It isn't just about the skill checks, or it wouldn't say "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." right below skill checks.
And IN ADDITION "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" are all circumstance factors any NPC would reasonably consider in an interaction.
So, is the argument that "Charisma ONLY affects Charisma-based skill rolls and nothing else?"
I can't say I buy that to any degree. In fact, any game with a high-Charisma character disproves it several times per game, since the high-Cha player will describe how handsome/beautiful the character is, how popular they are with the locals, how many highly placed friends and contacts they have, etc. etc. None of which directly involve a d20 roll, nor should they.
No the argument is CHA only effects the things the rules say Charisma effects. I listed a number of situations that called for Charisma checks outside of skill use. Charisma also effects certain spellcasters spells. But outside of the things written in the rules, yes we are arguing that Charisma does not help with those. Charisma does not inherently determine beauty ("pretty") or popularity, or highly placed friends and contacts, though having a high CHA would certainly help with all of that.
Bob should be upset, because that is not what he said. He said all those polite things sure, but because of his overall roll on diplomacy those same words come across as snobbish, or creepy, or mechanical, or any one of hundred other reasons why being polite doesn't produce a guaranteed increased attitude adjustments in real life. Changing what a character said is big No, making a player take the result of his roll is not.
According to the game rules, that is how the low CHA character gets penalized. How the actual interaction is played out can be left up to the individual GM and player. Maybe the half-orc is too forward in his request, and scares the lady. Maybe he uses inappropriate language. Maybe he insults her in his request. Up to the GM, but the mechanical effects are played out.Agree 100%.
What get's my gizzard (and most people who are 'anti dump') is when Bob's player goes into great detail on how polite he is, and uses extremely polite language roleplaying his character, and then get's cheesed off when he rolls a 2 and the GM says 'You had all that in your head, and it sounded great, but it came out as 'Hey sugar****, you been boffing any red-headed guys with scars on their cheeks lately?' and claims that he didn't say that, and the GM should use what he said for the check, not what the roll indicated.
So if a character with Dex 7 and 0 ranks in Acrobatics says that he flips up on a table, spins around and make a backwards flip on to the floor, you let him do that?
According to your logic, you can't change what he does (says).
He's clearly attempting something he can't do without a great deal of luck, and if he fails, he should fall on his ***, not end up on the other side of the table.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wake me if someone says something that hasn't been said in the last hundred threads on this.
Edit: Although I do recall an amusing moment when a player was being diplomatic right up until he rolled low and changed mid-sentence to insulting the NPCs mother. Took the sting out of it I think.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ciretose - A dwarf with 6 CHA should certainly be regarded as "a bit gruff".
Now, some GMs go way past that. I actually read a post from someone once who said that since that's about the same CHA as a troll, the moment the dwarf entered a village every inhabitant would instantly assume he WAS a troll and attack him with deadly force.
Meanwhile, other GMs are more reasonable and actually treat a 6 CHA dwarf as "a bit gruff". And of course, there's everything in between.
Problem is, all of those GMs (those who know what "a bit gruff" means, those who treat it as "kill on sight, you must be a monster", and everyone in between) have ALL been labeling their interpretations as "enforcing the consequences of a dumped CHA" or "actually roleplaying their stats".
That means that when someone has a bad experience in their past (like the "kill the troll" thing, or even something less severe but still unreasonable), it was labeled "roleplay dump stats appropriately".
Then they come into a thread like this where there's a bunch of GMs saying they want their players to "roleplay dump stats appropriately", what do you suppose they think is being said? You (and others) might mean "be a bit gruff", but if that's not what they're used to "roleplay your stats" meaning, then that's not what they're going to hear - unless you're VERY explicit.
Which, I think, is where most of the heat of these threads come from: both sides want Dwarfy to be gruff, but when one side demands it, the other thinks they're demanding MORE than that; and when that side balks at a (perceived) requirement of going beyond gruffness, the first side thinks they're balking at having to roleplay any gruffness at all.
When really, I suspect the majority of both sides have the same idea.
Bob should be upset, because that is not what he said. He said all those polite things sure, but because of his overall roll on diplomacy those same words come across as snobbish, or creepy, or mechanical, or any one of hundred other reasons why being polite doesn't produce a guaranteed increased attitude adjustments in real life. Changing what a character said is big No, making a player take the result of his roll is not.
According to the game rules, that is how the low CHA character gets penalized. How the actual interaction is played out can be left up to the individual GM and player. Maybe the half-orc is too forward in his request, and scares the lady. Maybe he uses inappropriate language. Maybe he insults her in his request. Up to the GM, but the mechanical effects are played out.Agree 100%.
What get's my gizzard (and most people who are 'anti dump') is when Bob's player goes into great detail on how polite he is, and uses extremely polite language roleplaying his character, and then get's cheesed off when he rolls a 2 and the GM says 'You had all that in your head, and it sounded great, but it came out as 'Hey sugar****, you been boffing any red-headed guys with scars on their cheeks lately?' and claims that he didn't say that, and the GM should use what he said for the check, not what the roll indicated.
So if a character with Dex 7 and 0 ranks in Acrobatics says that he flips up on a table, spins around and make a backwards flip on to the floor, you let him do that?
According to your logic, you can't change what he does (says).
He's clearly attempting something he can't do without a great deal of luck, and if he fails, he should fall on his ***, not end up on the other side of the table.
"Says" and "Successfully does" are different thing. My logic is simple and straight forward, his character with 7 DEX and 7 CHA can attempt to both a. Be polite in an attempt to win the favor of a barmaid; and b. flip up on a table and spin around while doing the hokey-pokey. In order to make this attempt, Bob must roll to succeed. Assuming he fails then a. Although he was polite, his attempt comes across as creepy or snobby and thus the barmaid's attitude is worsened (I would *NOT* however change what his character said, thats just terrible terrible DMing), and b. his failed check causes him to land on the floor.
So you'll note I have no changed what the character said or did, I merely adjudicated the results. The key difference is a player has control over what his character says and there is no rule on failing to say what the player wants, while a player does not have control over the success of his actions.
Does that clarify your confusion?
The game doesn't have to bake in places where the charisma check must be made - as long as the GM feels none of the skills really applies, the fact that stats mention ability checks is pretty much enough.
Thats a little circular.
My contention is that the vast, VAST majority of uses for charisma do fall under a skill check. If what ciretose is saying is true I should see charisma checks being called for left and right... and I don't. That's a pretty strong indication that his interpretation is wrong.
Those charisma checks are called for in all the spells I mentioned, but apparently thats not enough for that side of the argument.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Old arguments are back again; and ironically contradictory.
"Melees can't keep up with casters"
"Dumped stats = totally incompetent"
They're linked; mages, bards, sorcs etc get mechanical benefits from Int / Chr, most fighty-types don't. Most fighty types also need stat points a lot more.
Gruff fighting types are all over Game of Thrones; why not have them mechanically available?
And let's be honest, we're all basically peasent-1s by the game standard, and most gamers tend to be intelligence 11-13 with a charisma in the 6-7 range. But we consider ourselves perfectly competent. Some have even managed to take a few ranks in Diplomacy :).
|
|
Where in the rules does it say that above and beyond the stat modifier that charisma should influence people?
And IN ADDITION "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" are all circumstance factors any NPC would reasonably consider in an interaction.
You do realize that is a quote from the rules, right?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it that hard to believe that there are tons of people out there with pathetic int, wis, and cha?
I thought that was one of the more realistic aspects of the game.
|
|
If what ciretose is saying is true I should see charisma checks being called for left and right...
Why?
Every interaction in the game, thankfully, does not involve rolling dice.
Diplomacy to influence is a specific thing. You are taking a full minute to convince someone to do something.
If I'm a 20 Charisma Bard, I might not need to use diplomacy to get someone to buy me a beer.
If I'm a 6 Charisma Barbarian, I probably will. Or intimidate.
Why would I roll dice unless there is a conflict? The checks I've seen for diplomacy are generally in situations where there is a specific application that falls exactly under what is described in diplomacy (Gather info, convince someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise do, etc...)
The most common application of charisma in games I've played and seen is in NPC's interactions.
NPC is there, NPC looks around and sees 20 Charisma Bard and 6 Charisma Barbarian, acts accordingly.
Now maybe 20 Charisma Bard is a half-orc and the NPC hate half orcs. Or maybe the NPC is a dwarf and so is the Barbarian, so that bond is more important to that NPC than charisma.
But, again all things being equal, advantage higher Charisma, with more advantage with more difference.
Why? Because personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance matter.
Does that mean I try and kill the low charisma character? Not. Does it mean I might find them less interesting or be less inclined to help them than I would the high charisma character.
All other things being equal, yes.
|
|
Agree with Jiggy that most people probably over-estimate how low a low score is.
As for whether charisma checks should exist outside of cha skills:
Ability checks are normally used when a task falls outside of normal skill parameters and/or where training is unlikely to increase success. Thus it seems reasonable that attracting attention and first impressions would be covered by a charisma check (with appropriate circumstance modifiers) since those things are not covered by Diplomacy (which does take a minute) and there's not a whole lot of training involved. And if PCs aren't actively trying to influence someone, a "take 10 cha check" should determine who gets approached first or who gets bought a drink.
On the other hand, a charisma check should never be required to allow a character to make a Diplomacy check. This would be like requiring a dex check before allowing a character to make an acrobatics check to tumble, to see if they have quick enough reflexes to react to their opponent. That is already taken into account with the ability modifier on your skill check. I would only use a “first impressions” charisma check in a situation in which you weren't going to get a Diplomacy check no matter how the charisma check resolved – and even then I might give a +2 bonus to someone highly trained in Diplomacy to represent a better understanding of body language or what one sentence is most likely to elicit a response.
An investment in charisma should be rewarded, but so should an investment in the Diplomacy skill.
So yes, the Cha 20 bard gets approached first all things being equal. But if doesn't have ranks in Diplomacy, he tells the NPC asking to hire the party to talk to the Cha 7 fighter with actual negotiation training.
EDIT: I think the lack of Cha checks in published material is probably due to the fact that they would have little influence on the ultimate success of most adventure tasks compared to Diplomacy; being bought a drink is more of a flavour perk.
The game tells you Charisma effects personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
And personality, personal magnetism, etc affect your ability to effectively use Diplomacy (or Intimidate or Bluff), hence those skills being charisma-based. Also Charisma affects your Leadership score (ability to lead).
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...
Greasing palms and good equipment represent circumstance bonuses, not training. A low strength climber with good technique can beat a climber with more muscle strength but poor technique even given equal quality gear. (Granted, some climbs tend to rely more or less on strength vs technique but that's a subtlety not covered by the skill checks system.)
Why?
Because a check is by definition rolling a die and adding a modifier. You want checks to influence people to be charisma checks. Every single check I see to influence someone is a diplomacy check.
Why would I roll dice unless there is a conflict?
why would there be story if there's no conflict?
The checks I've seen for diplomacy are generally in situations where there is a specific application that falls exactly under what is described in diplomacy (Gather info, convince someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise do, etc...)
Gather info
Ask a favorConvince someone to do something they wouldn't do otherwise
Convince someone to lend you an army
Convince someone to stop shooting at you
Make someone like you more or hate you less
This is NOT a narrow application. It is not specific. Diplomacy, not a raw charisma check, is functionally the sum total of nearly all interaction.
How hard could this possibly be if you were right to name one charisma check in a module or scenario?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Says" and "Successfully does" are different thing. My logic is simple and straight forward, his character with 7 DEX and 7 CHA can attempt to both a. Be polite in an attempt to win the favor of a barmaid; and b. flip up on a table and spin around while doing the hokey-pokey. In order to make this attempt, Bob must roll to succeed. Assuming he fails then a. Although he was polite, his attempt comes across as creepy or snobby and thus the barmaid's attitude is worsened (I would *NOT* however change what his character said, thats just terrible terrible DMing), and b. his failed check causes him to land on the floor.So you'll note I have no changed what the character said or did, I merely adjudicated the results. The key difference is a player has control over what his character says and there is no rule on failing to say what the player wants, while a player does not have control over the success of his actions.
Does that clarify your confusion?
Yes, it illustrates you have a double standard. It's perfectly fine to say that he slips on a banana peel, or that he put his hand on a beer stine, or he missed the table entirely and ended up doing a prat fall into a puddle of beer, all of which are completely changing what he says his character does. But, having his words come out different than he intended is just wrong wrong wrong.
If you wanted to be consistent, you would let him do everything he said, and then at the end hit the floor and end up rolling back under the table or something. It would be the wrong way to do it, because he'd still get the benefit of getting over the table, but it would at least be consistent with your word ruling.
What you say your character says is just like what you say your character does. It's what you intend to happen, it's what he intended to say/do. But what actually happens is specified by the die roll, and the ACTUAL happenings (what comes out of his mouth or what he puts his foot into) is what reality is in the game.
God if I had a $1 for every time I practiced what I wanted to say in my head, and then blurted out exactly the wrong thing instead, I'd be able to buy Paizo lock stock and barrel. I see no reason why in character this never happens because the PC magically never says something he didn't intend to. Apparently in your game world, PCs and NPCs never get tongue tied, and never blurt out the wrong thing at the wrong time, or say things they didn't mean to. Really wierd place you have.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't get why so many people act like PFRPG's mechanics for Charisma devalue the ability score. The most commonly requested skill checks in the game other than Perception are linked to Charisma, as is the single most powerful skill (Use Magic Device). Even if you are not a class whose powers are partially or wholly keyed to Charisma, the mechanics punish you enough if you dump it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm a 20 Charisma Bard, I might not need to use diplomacy to get someone to buy me a beer.
Just because you auto-succeed on a check and/or you GM handwave it away, it doesn't mean your character is not making a check if following RAW.
There is no rule saying Charisma influences the NPCs' initial reaction to your character, and no rule saying that characters with Charisma 20 are any more convincing than a guy with with Cha 10 and 5 ranks in Diplomac, Bluff and Intimidate.
All you mentioned so far was the fluff text for Charisma, but not one actual rule.
Diplomacy includes lots of different social interactions. Hell, it even changes initial reaction!
I have always taken charisma to be "force of personality" ... this can be a lot of things: self assuredness, strong self identity, a certain magnetism that draws others etc.
For a paladin this high charisma shows a strength of faith... a deep personal resolve and sense of confidence. This is also why an oracle can look like a leper but have high charisma.. the oracle possesses some mystical magnetism.. he is hard to ignore and those around him sense a portentious power.
Low charisma is the opposite... a weak personality. Someone with low charisma is easily overlooked or forgotten. People are less likely to approach with a friendly demeanor and more likely to cross the street. As high charisma is magnetic low charisma is repellent.
So the best application for this, mechanically, is to adjust NPC starting attitudes. This means that a low charisma character can overcome their lack of natural allure by learning how to deal with people whereas a high charisma character might just rely on innate appeal.
In the long run this just means that the liw charisma character might need a minute to talk to someone in order to change their at-a-glance reaction. A high diplomacy/low charisma character will be that guy that no one really thinks much of until they get a chance to know him. A high charisma/low diplomacy character may have the better reaction at the start but can't hold a conversation, like a ditzy drunk girl who is pretty from a distance but obnoxious when she opens her mouth.
So he can talk a lot of smack, but can he actually bang? :pI play a Samurai(*) with a 12 Strength, a 14 Inteligence, and a 17 Charisma. Those mental stat numbers even went up recently because I accquired an Ioun Stone of +2 Charisma and a Headband of Vast Intelligence +4.
So yeah, I'm a bit of an oddball when it comes to my characters, but its pretty justified in that A) I'm a ruler of a kingdom and B) my character is built around the Intimidate skill. So yeah, I guess I don't fall into the "big dumb fighter" category. Sorry! D:
** spoiler omitted **
I'm going to try to answer this question without derailing the thread. Wish me luck.
Basically, my character is designed around debuffing my enemies. Currently I can inflicted the demoralized and prone conditions onto my opponents effortlessly; the +2 morale bonus from my order helps tremendously and I also get a +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks for being a Lore Warden. Despite my low Strength, I usually have a CMB of +14 or better when tripping. As my character levels, my plan is to go four levels into Rogue in order to pick up Brutal Beatdowm, which lets me forgo 1d6 points of Sneak Attack damage in order to inflict the sickened condition too. Since all of those conditions stack, it makes my opponents nice and easy for my brother's character (a bladebound magus) to hit with his spellstrikes as well as my cohort (a ninja).
In the long run, I have a blast playing the character because I enjoy controlling the battlefield more than having a damage race with the 100+ DPR Magus. Plus its fun to be able to effectively use my Charisma in combat. ;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Says" and "Successfully does" are different thing. My logic is simple and straight forward, his character with 7 DEX and 7 CHA can attempt to both a. Be polite in an attempt to win the favor of a barmaid; and b. flip up on a table and spin around while doing the hokey-pokey. In order to make this attempt, Bob must roll to succeed. Assuming he fails then a. Although he was polite, his attempt comes across as creepy or snobby and thus the barmaid's attitude is worsened (I would *NOT* however change what his character said, thats just terrible terrible DMing), and b. his failed check causes him to land on the floor.So you'll note I have no changed what the character said or did, I merely adjudicated the results. The key difference is a player has control over what his character says and there is no rule on failing to say what the player wants, while a player does not have control over the success of his actions.
Does that clarify your confusion?
Yes, it illustrates you have a double standard. It's perfectly fine to say that he slips on a banana peel, or that he put his hand on a beer stine, or he missed the table entirely and ended up doing a prat fall into a puddle of beer, all of which are completely changing what he says his character does. But, having his words come out different than he intended is just wrong wrong wrong.
If you wanted to be consistent, you would let him do everything he said, and then at the end hit the floor and end up rolling back under the table or something. It would be the wrong way to do it, because he'd still get the benefit of getting over the table, but it would at least be consistent with your word ruling.
What you say your character says is just like what you say your character does. It's what you intend to happen, it's what he intended to say/do. But what actually happens is specified by the die roll, and the ACTUAL happenings (what comes out of his mouth or what he puts his foot into) is what reality is in the game....
IF you cannot perceive that there is a difference between a player doing something and doing something successfully, I am unable to explain to you the difference apparently. The action the player is taking when saying all those is not "talking", it is attempting to influence the NPCs attitude. Their attempt to influence the npc's attitude is contingent on a successful roll. At no point is the success or failure contingent on what the player decides his character says.
So the best application for this, mechanically, is to adjust NPC starting attitudes. This means that a low charisma character can overcome their lack of natural allure by learning how to deal with people whereas a high charisma character might just rely on innate appeal.In the long run this just means that the liw charisma character might need a minute to talk to someone in order to change their at-a-glance reaction. A high diplomacy/low charisma character will be that guy that no one really thinks much of until they get a chance to know him. A high charisma/low diplomacy character may have the better reaction at the start but can't hold a conversation, like a ditzy drunk girl who is pretty from a distance but obnoxious when she opens her mouth.
Honestly, I've never actually been in a game where this wasn't how it worked. The GM naturally had the serving wenches offer the 'extra services' to the guy with the highest charisma first (or the girl, depending on the character and player). They also tended to respond more friendly to the high charisma characters than the low charisma characters during RP. I don't even think it was a thought out thing, it just 'feels natural' so I think most tables go with this sort of thing.
If I'm a 20 Charisma Bard, I might not need to use diplomacy to get someone to buy me a beer.Just because you auto-succeed on a check and/or you GM handwave it away, it doesn't mean your character is not making a check if following RAW.
There is no rule saying Charisma influences the NPCs' initial reaction to your character, and no rule saying that characters with Charisma 20 are any more convincing than a guy with with Cha 10 and 5 ranks in Diplomac, Bluff and Intimidate.
All you mentioned so far was the fluff text for Charisma, but not one actual rule.
There were rules in 3.5 which is where a lot of this comes from. There used to be a straight up charisma check to determine starting attitudes. Now there is NO rule to determine starting attitudes with, I guess, the assumption that this is pure Gm fiat. However, using charisma modifiers to determine the immediate initial attitude of an NPC is the ONLY thing that makes sense... modified conditionally by local racial and gender attitudes as well as personal appearance (cleanliness , attire etc.)
Diplomacy takes some time and given that little bit of time, you examples of two characters with different charismas but equal diplomacy checks will indeed be on exactly equal footing.
IF you cannot perceive that there is a difference between a player doing something and doing something successfully, I am unable to explain to you the difference apparently. The action the player is taking when saying all those is not "talking", it is attempting to influence the NPCs attitude. Their attempt to influence the npc's attitude is contingent on a successful roll. At no point is the success or failure contingent on what the player decides his character says.
IF you cannot perceive that there is no difference between changing a character's actions based on the die roll, and changing his words based on the die roll, I am unable to explain the lack of difference to you apparently.
The actions a player states his character take are the ones he intends them to take, and the ones the character intends to take. But things don't always work out as we intend. Sometimes we stick our hands on the wizard's half-eaten fried peanut butter and banana sandwhich, and sometimes when we look at the pretty girl and try to sound suave as we complement her on her appearance we instead say 'Woah! Nice ****!'.
We intended to vault over the table while drawing our rapier and look dashing. Instead we put our hand on the aforementioned sandwhich and land on our bum in a puddle of beer and puke.
We inteded to tell the girl that her eyes were like sapphires and her skin like fine parchment. But instead we ogle her cleavage and drool.
I just don't get why so many people act like PFRPG's mechanics for Charisma devalue the ability score. The most commonly requested skill checks in the game other than Perception are linked to Charisma
Because if I'm not the party face my lack of charisma has the same effect on the encounter as sir clanks a lots dexterity to pick a lock. I can dump charisma like a bad habit with no Ill effects. If i dump wisdom for perception then I don't act in the ubiquitous surprise round.
Strength: is the only stat I dump nearly as often. 1 pearl of power +1 ant haul= more than enough Carying capacity.
Dex: low ac hurts. Literally
con: never. ever. ever dump.
Int: dumps on a lot of martials. 10 int for that second skill point is expensive
wisdom: will save penalties hurt everyone
|
|
If I'm a 20 Charisma Bard, I might not need to use diplomacy to get someone to buy me a beer.Just because you auto-succeed on a check and/or you GM handwave it away, it doesn't mean your character is not making a check if following RAW.
There is no rule saying Charisma influences the NPCs' initial reaction to your character, and no rule saying that characters with Charisma 20 are any more convincing than a guy with with Cha 10 and 5 ranks in Diplomac, Bluff and Intimidate.
All you mentioned so far was the fluff text for Charisma, but not one actual rule.
Diplomacy includes lots of different social interactions. Hell, it even changes initial reaction!
There is a rule saying that it takes a full minute change the initial reaction for 1d4 hours that you can attempt once ever 24 hours. Devil is in the details.
And what do you think a GM should take into consideration when setting the initial reaction if not circumstances and personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
I supposed I could roll dice every time the Bard and Barbarian walk into the bar to see how they are perceived, and if a player asked I would, but generally it is a defacto "take 10" kind of situation.
And actually, there is a rule that says the 20 charisma person is more influential.
That is pretty much what it says under charisma.
We are pointing out that 7 in a stat isn't really that bad and doesn't necessarily have to be played as a stupid person or an exceptionally uncharismatic person.
It is bad. Of the Human population of Golarion, not one person in a million has a int of 7. The lowest NPC stat is 8. Eight is lowest normal. The human population of Golarion does not have the same curve as the human population of Earth. Other than a the handful of Pc’s in Golarion and a DM fiat village idiot type, the lowest Int is 8. Thus an adventurer with a Int of 7 is one in a million. Perhaps him and that lone DM fiat village idiot are the only two humans in the entire world to be that stupid.
So yeah- your FTR with a int of 7 is the second stupidest human in the entire world.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
This is interesting, there seems to be a very specific rules question arising out of all this:
Does a character's Charisma score affect an NPC's starting attitude toward that character?
Now, from the 30+ PFS scenarios I've run, lots of NPCs have had starting attitudes listed, never with any sort of adjustment based on PC Charisma. That said, there's also not much saying what you *should* base that on (when it's not pre-written in a published adventure).
Maybe that specific question (not the whole thread) should go to the rules forum, maybe even ask for FAQ treatment?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because if I'm not the party face my lack of charisma has the same effect on the encounter as sir clanks a lots dexterity to pick a lock. I can dump charisma like a bad habit with no Ill effects. If i dump wisdom for perception then I don't act in the ubiquitous surprise round.
To be clear, I don't think anyone is arguing that dumping charisma for a build not intended to be the party face is a problems or a bad thing.
What I am stating is that just because you are very good at negotiating doesn't mean you are particularly charismatic or will be seen by others as being charismatic.
It means you can negotiate and gather information.
I might be incredibly charismatic but not able to gather information or negotiate well. But since I'm so charming, I don't often need to convince people to follow me/work with me. They want to, because I'm charismatic.
And if you have that guy in the party, you don't have to be that guy. The face can do all those things and you can do what you do. Roles are awesome.
But what bothers me is when someone says they can replace diplomacy for charisma.
Using a Game of Thrones reference, I would suspect Roose Bolton is very good at diplomacy. He can convince people to do lots of things, both through diplomacy and intimidation. Same with the Frey's.
But the north will never love them.
That is a high diplomacy, low charisma concept to me. You can get them to be with you, for a time, because you can convince them they should do so.
Meanwhile Robb Stark and Eddard don't need to be diplomatic (and arguably sucked at it) because the people loved and respected them.
You follow the Starks because you want to. You follow the Bolton's and Frey's because they made a good offer.
There is a rule saying that it takes a full minute change the initial reaction for 1d4 hours that you can attempt once ever 24 hours. Devil is in the details.
The devil is indeed in the details. Getting random NPC at a bar to buy you a beer is not attempting to change their initial attitude. It is making a request. Per Diplomacy, making a request for an NPC to give you simple aid takes 1 or more rounds and has a DC of 15 + their Cha mod (assuming an indifferent target). Your stereotypical savvy Cha 20 character could work a room of a busy pub all night glomming a free drink of a handful of people, simply by taking 10 with each of them.
|
|
The devil is indeed in the details. Getting random NPC at a bar to buy you a beer is not attempting to change their initial attitude. It is making a request. Per Diplomacy, making a request for an NPC to give you simple aid takes 1 or more rounds and has a DC of 15 + their Cha mod (assuming an indifferent target). Your stereotypical savvy Cha 20 character could work a room of a busy pub all night glomming a free drink of a handful of people, simply by taking 10 with each of them.
There is a rule saying that it takes a full minute change the initial reaction for 1d4 hours that you can attempt once ever 24 hours. Devil is in the details.
The hot lady at the bar isn't spending a minute getting the guy to buy her a drink.
It happens because she is the hot lady at the bar.
There were rules in 3.5 which is where a lot of this comes from. There used to be a straight up charisma check to determine starting attitudes.
Where?
This didn't sound familiar to me and was never used in any 3.5 games I ran or in which I was a participant. I just surfed through the SRD and found nothing supporting this.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We are pointing out that 7 in a stat isn't really that bad and doesn't necessarily have to be played as a stupid person or an exceptionally uncharismatic person.It is bad. Of the Human population of Golarion, not one person in a million has a int of 7. The lowest NPC stat is 8. Eight is lowest normal. The human population of Golarion does not have the same curve as the human population of Earth. Other than a the handful of Pc’s in Golarion and a DM fiat village idiot type, the lowest Int is 8. Thus an adventurer with a Int of 7 is one in a million. Perhaps him and that lone DM fiat village idiot are the only two humans in the entire world to be that stupid.
So yeah- your FTR with a int of 7 is the second stupidest human in the entire world.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the village idiot has an INT of 4, not 7. While I agree that 7 INT is outside the range of "normal" (see my first post in this thread), it's much further from "village idiot" than it is from "normal".
Speaking of the village idiot, here's some of what is true about someone with 4 INT:
Village idiots can also be used as prisoners, galley slaves, or incarcerated lunatics in an asylum. A village idiot can also represent any simple commoner, by replacing his Climb skill with an appropriate Craft or Profession skill. A stableboy might have the Ride skill instead, while a dock rat may possess the Swim skill. An urchin runner might have the Fleet and Run feats instead.
So, 8 INT is within the "normal" range, and 4 INT could be anything from "incarcerated lunatic" to stableboy. There's no specific definition for 7 INT, but it's going to be somewhere between those two benchmarks.
What I am stating is that just because you are very good at negotiating doesn't mean you are particularly charismatic or will be seen by others as being charismatic.
That distinction does not come up in many play mechanics. So by crunch, it doesn't exist.
You can say that a dwarf with a 5 charisma and 15 ranks in diplomacy isn't very charismatic but as far as any action in the story goes there's never an opportunity to SHOW it because they keep doing EVERYTHING you expect a charismatic character to do. They get the elves to let them through the forest. They talk the pretty barmaid into sleeping with him. He schmoozes with the seedy underground to find out when the pesh shipment is coming in. He cuts a good deal on the Osirian draperies and turns he a hated Orc into a friendly drinking budding.
Your fluff has no crunch. Tell me in a specific, actionable way how the dwarf can be depicted as uncharismatic by the games mechanics.
.
I'm interested in seeing what DCs would look like if they scaled normally.
We are pointing out that 7 in a stat isn't really that bad and doesn't necessarily have to be played as a stupid person or an exceptionally uncharismatic person.It is bad. Of the Human population of Golarion, not one person in a million has a int of 7. The lowest NPC stat is 8. Eight is lowest normal. The human population of Golarion does not have the same curve as the human population of Earth. Other than a the handful of Pc’s in Golarion and a DM fiat village idiot type, the lowest Int is 8. Thus an adventurer with a Int of 7 is one in a million. Perhaps him and that lone DM fiat village idiot are the only two humans in the entire world to be that stupid.
So yeah- your FTR with a int of 7 is the second stupidest human in the entire world.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but the village idiot has an INT of 4, not 7. While I agree that 7 INT is outside the range of "normal" (see my first post in this thread), it's much further from "village idiot" than it is from "normal".
So, 8 INT is within the "normal" range, and 4 INT could be anything from "incarcerated lunatic" to stableboy. There's no specific definition for 7 INT, but it's going to be somewhere between those two benchmarks.
Yes, that's a DM fiat set up PC, exactly as I said. It's impossible for any normal Golarion human to have a base stat less than 8 . The range starts at 8. No NPC can "roll" a stat less than 8. The only way "the village idiot" has a stat of 4 is for the DM to flat out assign him one by Fiat. He could also assign the strongman a str of 30, perfectly within a Dm's purview. Doesn't mean that 30 is the top end of the normal Golarion stat curve, tho.
The DM can assign NPC's any stat he wants to make the AP move forward. BUT, the normal curve of HUMANS on GOLARION goes no lower than 8.