RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
(Bolding mine.)
Yes, I already agreed with that. I wrote a rather lengthy post, in fact, about "normal" and "abnormal" stats, using NPC stat arrays as a basis.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.
Pretending that a 4 from a statblock published in the GMG is equivalent to a GM arbitrarily selecting a 30 is extremely dishonest of you.
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.
Again, I agree about the "normal" curve. But that doesn't mean we should ignore the available benchmarks of abnormality.
|
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.
The difference here is that in the case of "I backflip over the table" you are stating a desired result, whereas in the case of "I tell the barmaid that her eyes are like sapphires and her skin like fine parchment" you are actually stating the means you are using to achieve your desired result, where the result is probably to get the barmaid to like you. It is entirely possible for a character to say "Your eyes are like sapphires and your skin like fine parchment" and still not impress the barmaid - you could be leering, or stutter or slur your words.
Rolls determine success or failure in performing a certain task, and in the case of Diplomacy, that task is either "get someone to like me" or "get someone to do what I want," NOT "say X."
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.
This can absolutely happen in a game, and if a player is engaged in RP (and rolls before making his attempt so as to RP according to how high he rolled) it can be lots of fun. Some players are really good at this. But if a player chooses not to RP a foot-in-mouth instance they can still fail at what they're trying to do because Diplomacy involves more than just the actual words being said. And as long as the player doesn't try to argue with the fact that his character failed the check, that's fine and dandy.
Your fluff has no crunch. Tell me in a specific, actionable way how the dwarf can be depicted as uncharismatic by the games mechanics.
Does it need crunch? It could be as simple as the guy who gave you a good deal on the draperies saying "you drive a hard bargain so I'll offer..." instead of "because I like you I'll offer..." or the pretty barmaid being too embarrassed to tell her friends about the encounter with the dwarf (but not with the cha 20 halfling).
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 ****!'.Maybe you might say "Woah! Nice ****!" to a girl. But please don't project that kind of behavior onto everyone else as though it's a common-to-us-all thing that "we" all do. In my entire twenty-nine years of life, in all the low and high rolls of my personal d20, in all the natural 1s I've gotten, in all the horrible, horrible Diplomacy failures I've made, I have never even once said anything remotely like that to a girl.
We can sometimes make mistakes and say things we don't mean to, yes. That is one possible way to describe a failed check. But just because a character might theoretically say something they didn't intend does not in any way, shape or form mean that there aren't plenty of things that a given character simply wouldn't say, even on the lowest possible roll. There are such things, and what they are will vary from character to character.
A GM can say the Diplomacy attempt succeeded or failed based on the die roll, thus enforcing the mechanical penalty for the dumped stat. But not only is it an overooooreach to try and wrest control of a PC's characterization from their player, to try and dictate to them what flavors of Diplomacy-failure (out of all the countless ways there are to fail) are in-character and out-of-character for their own character, I can't even comprehend why a GM would WANT to overrule a players wishes in such a way if they've made them known to him.
What kind of thoughts are even going through a GM's head when a player wants to have their old Elf Wizard's Charisma...
wow. No sodium.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets go down memory lane....
The Charisma (Cha) score measures a character's persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead. It is not a reflection of physical attractiveness, although attractiveness certainly plays a role. It is important to all characters, but especially to those who must deal with nonplayer characters (NPCs), mercenary hirelings, retainers, and intelligent monsters. It dictates the total number of henchmen a character can retain and affects the loyalty of henchmen, hirelings, and retainers.
Maximum Number of Henchmen states the number of nonplayer characters who will serve as permanent retainers of the player character. It does not affect the number of mercenary soldiers, men-at-arms, servitors, or other persons in the pay of the character.
Loyalty Base shows the subtraction from or addition to the henchmen's and other servitors' loyalty scores (in the DMG). This is crucial during battles, when morale becomes important.
Reaction Adjustment indicates the penalty or bonus due to the character because of Charisma when dealing with nonplayer characters and intelligent creatures. For example, Rath encounters a centaur, an intelligent creature. Rath's Charisma is only 6, so he is starting off with one strike against him. He probably should try to overcome this slight handicap by making generous offers of gifts or information.
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.
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.
Bards, paladins, and sorcerers gain a number of bonus spells based on their Charisma scores. The minimum Charisma score needed to cast a bard, paladin, or sorcerer spell is 10 + the spell’s level.
Benefits: This feat enables you to attract a loyal cohort and a number of devoted subordinates who assist you. A cohort is generally an NPC with class levels, while followers are typically lower level NPCs. See Table 5–2 for what level of cohort and how many followers you can recruit.
Leadership Modifiers: Several factors can affect your Leadership score, causing it to vary from the base score (character level + Cha modifier). Your reputation (from the point of view of the cohort or follower you are trying to attract) raises or lowers your Leadership score:
<table>
Other modifiers may apply when you try to attract a cohort, as listed below.
<table>
Followers have different priorities from cohorts. When you try to attract a follower, use the following modifiers.
<table>
Leadership Score: Your base Leadership score equals your level plus your Charisma modifier. In order to take into account negative Charisma modifiers, this table allows for very low Leadership scores, but you must still be 7th level or higher in order to gain the Leadership feat. Outside factors can affect your Leadership score, as detailed above.
Cohort Level: You can attract a cohort of up to this level. Regardless of your Leadership score, you can only recruit a cohort who is two or more levels lower than yourself. The cohort should be equipped with gear appropriate for its level (see Chapter 14). A cohort can be of any race or class. The cohort’s alignment may not be opposed to your alignment on either the law/chaos or good/evil axis, and you take a –1 penalty to your Leadership score if you recruit a cohort of an alignment different from your own.
A cohort does not count as a party member when determining the party’s XP. Instead, divide the cohort’s level by your level. Multiply this result by the total XP awarded to you, then add that number of experience points to the cohort’s total.
If a cohort gains enough XP to bring it to a level one lower than your level, the cohort does not gain the new level—its new XP total is 1 less than the amount needed to attain the next level.
Number of Followers by Level: You can lead up to the indicated number of characters of each level. Followers are similar to cohorts, except they’re generally low-level NPCs. Because they’re usually 5 or more levels behind you, they’re rarely effective in combat.
Followers don’t earn experience and thus don’t gain levels. When you gain a new level, consult Table 5–2 to determine if you acquire more followers, some of whom may be higher level than the existing followers. Don’t consult the table to see if your cohort gains levels, however, because cohorts earn experience on their own.
Back in AD&D, charisma was essentially the same as now, but the abilities for number of henchmen and loyalty base got separated into the leadership feat. Reaction adjustment (RA) got dropped.
I see RA as the initial response, or strait charisma check. The skill can be used to modify that.
Trying to use the Heroic array, or PC stats to argue Normal is fundamentally flawed, as these are by definition not the norm, but rather the exception. As has been shown, a normal NPC has an 8 somewhere, and therefore 1/6 in Cha. While many may think it is unusual, i.e. ugly/abrasive/..., it is in fact common.
What happens when the low Cha PC talks to the merchant? The merchant initially does not care for the PC, but because he is there to trade, he will listen the needed minute for the Diplomacy or Bluff skill to be used. What happens if you replace the merchant with a wandering noble? The noble has no reason to listen to anyone, so there is no time to try your skill and thus it becomes a simple Cha check, even if you have +50 in the skill. Circumstance can change this. Show up in fancy clothes: +2, expensive jewelry: +2, pretty girl on the arm: +2. This could change the Cha check from a d20-2 to d20+4 without any interaction time used.
On another note, I am somewhat OK with using OOC words to affect IC skill. Specifically allowing a bonus for the effort to roleplay. I do recall seeing modifiers that used player effort to apply a +/-2 or even +/-4. So, if a low Cha char's player gives an impassioned speech even though his char cannot, I can see a plus modifier for effort. If a high Cha char's play arrogantly tells the GM that his character succeeded at a check without bothering to actually make the check, I might give a penalty. This can apply even better with players that are themselves not very outgoing, as it rewards them for coming out of their shell. At no point would I let OOC words dictate the result, only a small plus or minus to the DC.
/cevah
|
That distinction does not come up in many play mechanics. So by crunch, it doesn't exist.
Except that it says it does under charisma.
The fact that you don't roll when you are attempting to influence anyone in a setting that isn't specifically a diplomacy roll, that is any discussion that isn't you spending a full continuous minute trying to use diplomacy, doesn't mean that it isn't what the GM should be using to make the determination if the person will bother letting you spend a minute talking to them, or approach you at all, or think you seem like someone inspiring.
The NPC is influenced by your Charisma, if you roll it or not. You could roll a check every time, or you could have a running "take 10" on charisma checks for every interaction with someone new to see if you influence them, which is more or less what most GM's do.
The guy with the high charisma is more likely to be viewed as more influential than the guy with low charisma, unless you decide for some reason to ignore the effects of charisma, which is what you seem to be arguing for.
If you wanted to slow the game down to a crawl, you would roll that check each time to see how your character is influencing anyone they aren't spending a full minute using diplomacy on.
Because that is what the check says it does. Charisma is used for checks that represent attempts to influence others.
It says that. In the rules. That is crunch, supporting the fluff.
If you don't use it, fine. But it is there.
|
|
Booth babes (horrible and degrading as they are...) are examples of the two checks in action.
The person is drawn to the booth not by diplomacy, but by the booth babes "Charisma"
Then there is someone else at the booth trying to sell the product now that they have your attention, using diplomacy.
But that guy in the booth isn't going to get "a minute of your time" based on his charisma check.
Except that it says it does under charisma.
But gives no mechanism for HOW its supposed to work.
Is anything I said about the Dwarf false?
Did anything I've been saying not follow from that example?
List everything charismatic that Stumpy the 5 charisma 15 diplomacy dwarf can't do.
Explain to me how Stumpy's alleged lack of charisma would not quickly become an informed attribute.
The NPC is influenced by your Charisma, if you roll it or not. You could roll a check every time, or you could have a running "take 10" on charisma checks for every interaction with someone new to see if you influence them, which is more or less what most GM's do.
If your interactions with an npc come in at under a minute and don't involve a mace to the temple they're backrgound. Its window dressing, fluff, and utterly irrelevant to the story. It matters as much whether the character has a younger sibling that pops in from time to time for coffee.
The guy with the high charisma is more likely to be viewed as more influential than the guy with low charisma, unless you decide for some reason to ignore the effects of charisma, which is what you seem to be arguing for.
He'll be seen that way for all of 59 seconds at best.
Because that is what the check says it does.
This is not raw. It is your interpretation. If you could take a moment to consider the possibility that you MIGHT not be right you'd overwhelming mountain of evidence that you're wrong. It does not say "you make raw charisma checks to influence others"- that is your own interpretation. Influencing others is blatantly, objectively, and clearly covered under diplomacy and is in fact its primary use, and is in fact the only mechanics PC's have for influencing NPCs.
You say you're a subscriber, then show me a charisma check somewhere, anywhere that isn't an untrained skill check.
|
|
@Lifat - In order to use diplomacy, you have to get 1 minute of continuous interaction.
You are basically giving them a sales pitch.
As anyone who has worked in sales can tell you, getting "1 minute of continuous interaction" from someone is not a given.
Now circumstances may be such that the NPC is inclined to listen to you regardless of your charisma.
Or not.
But all things being equal, the 20 Charisma Bard is going to be pretty interesting to most NPC's and the 6 charisma Barbarian...not so much.
So if both of you are trying to get 1 minute of continuous interaction from an NPC, or hell either of you were trying to get 1 minute of continuous interaction in general, what would you roll to decide if they succeed?
Personally, I give the PC the benefit of the doubt on a take 10 with a 10 DC if there are no other circumstances involved.
In other words, if I have nothing else going on and someone above average charisma wants a minute of my time, sure. Below average...not so much.
That means that your characterization of int 7 as the village idiot is not on the spot.
Maybe he comes from a higher class of village.
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?
You shouldn't base it on anything. Maybe Fabio is the first person a NPC approaches (even though his CHR his actually 7) simply because he looks in charge. He will suffer a penalty for any rolls he takes, but he is free to otherwise roleplay as he would like to portray his character without somehow being in violation of his base stats. A man who looks like he could win a fight might get bought a beer for being "one of the guys", while the way to pretty to be a guy Sorcerer might not (though if the sorcerer started speaking that could change very quickly in exactly 1 minute even).
Also, others explained the differences between what a PC says and what an PC successfully does so I'm convinced the communication problem is not in my explanation...
That 8 is the space where the average humans +2 stat modifier likely sits, so the 8 (in the main) is probably not there. The average person tends to be... average.
|
|
@Ciretose The 1 minute timer is to shift a persons attitude from a category like indifferent to better (or worse :P). Requesting something from an npc via diplomacy takes 1 round or longer. That means I need 6 seconds to convince you to hear me out (if I succeed on the check) then I can start shifting your attitude if that is what I want. The request only works if people are indifferent to you (or better) but unless you rule that the npc starts with attitude unfriendly then it can easily be done. Nowhere in the rules does it state anything about Charisma score affecting initial attitude, so unless the npc would be unfriendly to anyone (including the charisma 20) then you are not going by RAW.
If they are already indifferent to you.
Nothing in the rules say anything about initial attitude. I wonder what check would influence an NPC...
|
|
Why would the rules say anything about the initial attitude? Wouldn't that be a story element that would be established by the GM?
Yes. Based on factors such as the personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance of the PC's.
Would you agree that these things would be part of what a GM should consider?
If it helps any, there's a reference in the d20 srd to "Charisma Checks" being used.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
However, that reference appears to be absent in the Pathfinder version of the diplomacy skill.
Personally, I have no horse in this race and put it down to GM/table variation, so just throwing the reference (and lack thereof in PF) out there. You could either take it as a precedent for CHA checks, or as an indication the PF designers didn't want those. Or it could just have gotten lost in editing.
|
|
If it helps any, there's a reference in the d20 srd to "Charisma Checks" being used.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm
However, that reference appears to be absent in the Pathfinder version of the diplomacy skill.
Personally, I have no horse in this race and put it down to GM/table variation, so just throwing the reference (and lack thereof in PF) out there. You could either take it as a precedent for CHA checks, or as an indication the PF designers didn't want those. Or it could just have gotten lost in editing.
It also reflects what the definitions were for the various attitudes. I used that when people were arguing in another thread that diplomacy was what you used to woo.
Sexy contract negotiation that ends in 1d4 hours...
@Cevah HUH? The initial discussion was for whether or not anyone actually plays the stats that they are "supposed to". Then a discussion on what a low stat actually is and how quickly it goes from average to village idiot. Then a discussion on what charisma actually influences starts up. But yours is way out there. Don't get me wrong, it might be superior to what the game system tells us to do, but what you are suggesting has no root in the game system. There is no RA what so ever mentioned anywhere within pathfinder ruleset.
Well, I did say it was dropped. It was in AD&D (i.e. 2 not 3.0).
As to being rootless, perhaps. But consider we play to have shared fun and not let mechanics dictate.
/cevah
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sexy contract negotiation that ends in 1d4 hours...
1) Lets be honest thats more than long enough
2) It can and does last longer depending on the circumstances
Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
Which means the way to shift a creatures attitude is to make a diplomacy check and ask your DM nicely, not get stuck with a raw charisma check.
my half-nymph bard from a long time ago (+2 int +2 cha -2 str) had
5 Strength
7 Constitution
14 Dexterity
19 Intelligence (all level up points went to Intelligence)
14 Wisdom
18 Charisma
she didn't carry a visible weapon either, she was a sickly small framed youth whom dressed like Victorian Era Nobility, had an emaciated and underdeveloped frame, she was pale, but her appearance was cute in the doll-like kind of way. think of Suigintou, Gokou Ruri, or Misa Amane as a base guideline. she's have penalties among a barbarian tribe, but bonuses in a city.
|
|
Sexy contract negotiation that ends in 1d4 hours...
1) Lets be honest thats more than long enough
2) It can and does last longer depending on the circumstances
Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
Which means the way to shift a creatures attitude is to make a diplomacy check and ask your DM nicely, not get stuck with a raw charisma check.
If the GM says it does, it can last longer. If the GM says it rains frogs, it rains frogs.
You GM decided what the initial attitude was anyway. Don't you think PC personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance came into play in that equation.
@Matt Thomason
That section doesn't speak of charisma checks but specifically about diplomacy checks. It doesn't say anything about how to judge an npc's initial attitude. What it does is show us a related game system that this system was built upon and what they thought the different attitudes meant.
Scroll down to "Influencing NPC Attitudes" which says
"Use the table below to determine the effectiveness of Diplomacy checks (or Charisma checks) made to influence the attitude of a nonplayer character"But yes, I did state it may have been the Pathfinder designers' intention to remove that reference.
but bonuses in a city.
Or a target for assault and abduction.
Did you take the good with the bad?
If the GM says it does, it can last longer. If the GM says it rains frogs, it rains frogs.
The DM is explicitly being given the go ahead to make it last longer without rule 0. Your insistence on carving out a niche for charisma based on the need to make something last longer is thus pointless.
You GM decided what the initial attitude was anyway. Don't you think PC personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance came into play in that equation.
Might. Might not.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
ciretose, if you're suggesting lowering NPC reactions to a low-cha PC to "unfriendly" to prevent the PC from attempting Diplomacy checks, that's profoundly unfair. There is no situation in the game where a PC is required to succeed at an ability check (or have some minimium ability score) before attempting a skill check.
Would you require a wizard to make a strength check before he attempts a melee attack roll?
On another note, I am somewhat OK with using OOC words to affect IC skill. Specifically allowing a bonus for the effort to roleplay. I do recall seeing modifiers that used player effort to apply a +/-2 or even +/-4. So, if a low Cha char's player gives an impassioned speech even though his char cannot, I can see a plus modifier for effort. If a high Cha char's play arrogantly tells the GM that his character succeeded at a check without bothering to actually make the check, I might give a penalty. This can apply even better with players that are themselves not very outgoing, as it rewards them for coming out of their shell. At no point would I let OOC words dictate the result, only a small plus or minus to the DC.
While I appreciate you're not making OOC words carry a lot of weight, you should know that some "not very outgoing" players would not react to this system by coming out of their shells, but would instead avoid playing "face" characters due to the penalty. My first high-cha character was actually unpleasant to play for this reason.
I like playing characters with both high charisma and intelligence. I hope Paizo comes out with a class which uses both those stats soon! <crosses finger for the Arcanist>
Seriously, though, I only dump CHA on very few characters and never INT. And CHA never below 8 (after racial or age modifiers, that is) and then only with guys who either had not that much contact with other sentients or who are a bit unbalanced. I tend to like to dump WIS down to 8 for Paladins and then play them as lacking a bit in attention to detail or being a bit reckless.
but bonuses in a city.Or a target for assault and abduction.
Did you take the good with the bad?
most of both
i couldn't impress a barbarian horde "she's not good for bearing sons."
she was great at gathering information in urban enviroments
but she remembered to keep a surplus of body guards to stop assault and abduction prematurely.
when you have, including PCs, cohorts, and long term hirelings 44 other people, 27 of which looked either large and/or heavily armored. and another 11 of which, were some kind of lightly armored nimble warrior, i think she was safe. and that's not counting herself.
she knew she was a target for kidnapping, so she brought more bodyguards
@Cevah
By all means if we switch from RAW to houseruling (which I'm personally a fan of too) then sure what you said matters. But the original title is slightly inflamatory in the wording and I don't think it is okay to look down upon those who choose to go RAW.
If playing RAW is fun then play RAW. If you do not have fun, what is the point of playing? I usually play with very few, if any, house rules, and usually have fun.
As to looking down at anyone, I from time to time may think along those lines, but my own sense of self does not let me knowingly say it. If you perceived it as such, please know it was not said as such.
Quoted for truth. I get the motivation behind letting OOC speech cary weight. Problem is that it is easy to play a character that is stronger than yourself, while it is very difficult to play smarter than yourself (or more charismatic). This is where skill checks / ability checks come into play. And letting OOC have too much influence on that penalizes and thus discourages people from playing those roles.
While I appreciate you're not making OOC words carry a lot of weight, you should know that some "not very outgoing" players would not react to this system by coming out of their shells, but would instead avoid playing "face" characters due to the penalty. My first high-cha character was actually unpleasant to play for this reason.
It is not the OOC speech but the OOC speaking that gained the weight. Notable difference. Putting forth effort is rewarded, not how well the effort sounded.
This benefit was not limited to Cha checks, but to all things. If you made an effort to *be* part of the story, you got benefits.
As for bringing people out of their shell, playing someone totally different from what you are is a great method. It is a game, and not real, thus your own [perceived] failings are of no consequence. Will it work for everyone? No. But having friends and family with you, as I did when starting, makes it much easier.
/cevah
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
your charisma modifier is what other people "see" when meeting youCitation?
Sigh. BNW. You really want to play in a game where your charisma score has no effect?
There is no need for a citation as your charisma score is what you use for social interactions if you don't spend actions using your skills.The first edition of AD&D had a difference in NPC reaction between the initial reaction and the modifier you get after some interaction, something that wasn't maintained in the 3.X rules as an explicit rule, but that appear in the time needed to use diplomacy.No. They do not actually appear anywhere in the time needed to use diplomacy.
BMW, the fact that you need to speak with someone for 1 minute is what make that apparent in diplomacy. Your diplomacy skill don't affect your initial reaction.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't harp on this if it weren't for the fact that most people who say Charisma is "weak" are the same people who weaken it by letting diplomacy do things beyond what is the scope of what is listed.
However you play, if it makes you players happy, isn't bad. But the game doesn't say diplomacy replaces charisma. Quite the contrary.
If you're going to tell me that -you're doing it wrong, thats why you think charisma sucks- you're going to have to show me some mechanics that go along with the fluff of a charisma check. Specifically you could start with a common situation where I can use charisma but not diplomacy or bluff.
Diplomacy is to persuade others to agree with your arguments, to resolve differences, and to gather valuable information or rumors from people.
That is a fairly narrow realm of social interactions, with a fairly narrow set of uses outlined under the skill.
This is blatantly false.
Diplomacy changes peoples attitudes about you.
Diplomacy lets you ask people for favors.Its not a narrow range by any means, it covers 90+ percent of PC NPC interaction.
For 1d4 hours, once day.
Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).
While there is no rule for long term interactions beside the romance rules in Jade Regent, you can use charisma to gauge them.
BTW, Ultimate Campaign has the rule you "want":
Charisma: Since your base Relationship Score with any NPC is equal to your Charisma modifier, when your Charisma score changes permanently (such as from Charisma drain or a headband of alluring Charisma), your Relationship Scores with NPCs change with it. Temporary changes, such as from ability damage or bonuses from spells like eagle’s splendor, do not alter Relationship Scores.
Note that Diplomacy has no effect on your Relationship score.
|
|
If the GM says it does, it can last longer. If the GM says it rains frogs, it rains frogs.
The DM is explicitly being given the go ahead to make it last longer without rule 0. Your insistence on carving out a niche for charisma based on the need to make something last longer is thus pointless.
You GM decided what the initial attitude was anyway. Don't you think PC personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance came into play in that equation.Might. Might not.
You are arguing that because the GM "could" make it last for more than 1d4 hours, it is "the" check for influence rather that a skill to be used specifically for the situatuins is listed under it, and despite is literally saying that charisma is used for, and I quote "Checks that represent attempts to influence others."
And then you further are trying to say personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance "might not" be factors a GM considers in initial attitude.
And you are accusing me of trying to carve out a niche...
|
|
ciretose, if you're suggesting lowering NPC reactions to a low-cha PC to "unfriendly" to prevent the PC from attempting Diplomacy checks, that's profoundly unfair.
I'm also suggesting that at times you may raise it from unfriendly to indifferent or higher for a high charisma.
If I'm unfriendly to most strangers, because adventurers cause problems I don't want to deal with, or there are problems in town I don't want to get involved with, etc, etc...I'm not going to be inclined to be anything but unfriendly to anyone with an average to low charisma. But I might be at least indifferent to someone with a high charisma.
Similarly if I'm generally indifferent to most people but you are smelling and look like a homeless guy, or just exude a generally negative charisma in your mannerisms, dress, etc.. I'm not going to be inclined to give you a minute of my time for you just as I'm not giving a minute to a begger on the street or a bad used car salesman to try to sell me on a diplomacy check and so I may be initially unfriendly to you.
How is that unreasonable? How is that not using the circumstances to determine initial attitude?
In your example of the wizard, if the sword weighed more than he could generally lift, yes I would require a strength check to see if he could lift it. Wouldn't you?
In this example, diplomacy requires the NPC to be willing to chat with them for a full minute to change attitude if less than indifferent, and you only get one request with diplomacy.
You are arguing that because the GM "could" make it last for more than 1d4 hours, it is "the" check for influence rather that a skill to be used specifically for the situatuins is listed under it
No.
I am arguing that the situations listed under diplomacy are so broad, far reaching, generic, universal, and Ubiquitous that I can find 29 diplomacy checks in my last 3 adventures but you cannot find a single Charisma check in ANY Of yours.
and despite is literally saying that charisma is used for, and I quote "Checks that represent attempts to influence others."
Which is 100% pure fluff with no actual relevance, which is the entire complaint.
And then you further are trying to say personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance "might not" be factors a GM considers in initial attitude.
The guard sees you hanging from the ceiling in black spandex leather hovering over the elephants heart holding a masterwork thieves set his initial attitude is "Crossbow bolt to the head!". You walk into a red dragons lair his initial attitude is "Mmmm.. lunch" no matter how pretty you are.
And you are accusing me of trying to carve out a niche...
Well I've already shown you the entire Great Valley that is diplomacy so I have to wonder why you're still chipping away with the pick.