How Many People Are Legitimately Running These "Social Incompetent" Builds Real World?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 720 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since everyone keeps saying Diplomacy takes 1+ minute of interaction, I wanted to point out that this is false. It takes 1 round of interaction for most uses of interacting with people, 1 minute to influence their starting attitude, and longer for gather information.

Most Diplomacy checks are made in 1 round. Changing how another creature feels about you takes 1 minute, which is reasonable. Most people don't choose friends on sight (that would be obscenely stupid).

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Which is 100% pure fluff with no actual relevance, which is the entire complaint.

The rule specifically saying Charisma is used for "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." is fluff?

Something referencing "checks", a game mechanic, is fluff?

Really, you are going to try and make that argument.

Of course there are lots of diplomacy references. There are lots of jump/swim/climb/etc checks as well. It is a skill in the game, and skills that come up generally have checks.

You are saying what the book actually says you use for a check, a game term, is fluff. And the only case you seem to have is omission, asking me to prove a negative.

It literally says in the book that charisma is used for checks that represent attempts to influence others, in a separate sentence directly below a listing of skills, meaning that isn't what it is talking about.

It says those words. In the book.

It also provides a ton of limitations on the use of diplomacy that directly contradict your assertions about uses.

If you are just going to demand I disprove a negative and fight crossbow strawmen, I'm done with you.

Liberty's Edge

Ashiel wrote:

Since everyone keeps saying Diplomacy takes 1+ minute of interaction, I wanted to point out that this is false. It takes 1 round of interaction for most uses of interacting with people, 1 minute to influence their starting attitude, and longer for gather information.

Most Diplomacy checks are made in 1 round. Changing how another creature feels about you takes 1 minute, which is reasonable. Most people don't choose friends on sight (that would be obscenely stupid).

Great...

To avoid the selective readings, let's enter the whole thing into the record.

Diplomacy:

"You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check. The DC of this check depends on the creature's starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier. If you succeed, the character's attitude toward you is improved by one step. For every 5 by which your check result exceeds the DC, the character's attitude toward you increases by one additional step. A creature's attitude cannot be shifted more than two steps up in this way, although the GM can override this rule in some situations. If you fail the check by 4 or less, the character's attitude toward you is unchanged. If you fail by 5 or more, the character's attitude toward you is decreased by one step.

You cannot use Diplomacy against a creature that does not understand you or has an Intelligence of 3 or less. Diplomacy is generally ineffective in combat and against creatures that intend to harm you or your allies in the immediate future. Any attitude shift caused through Diplomacy generally lasts for 1d4 hours but can last much longer or shorter depending upon the situation (GM discretion).

(Chart)

"If a creature's attitude toward you is at least indifferent, you can make requests of the creature. This is an [/b]additional Diplomacy check[/b], using the creature's current attitude to determine the base DC, with one of the following modifiers. Once a creature's attitude has shifted to helpful, the creature gives in to most requests without a check, unless the request is against its nature or puts it in serious peril. Some requests automatically fail if the request goes against the creature's values or its nature, subject to GM discretion."

(Chart)

Gather Information: You can also use Diplomacy to gather information about a specific topic or individual. To do this, you must spend at least 1d4 hours canvassing people at local taverns, markets, and gathering places. The DC of this check depends on the obscurity of the information sought, but for most commonly known facts or rumors it is 10. For obscure or secret knowledge, the DC might increase to 20 or higher. The GM might rule that some topics are simply unknown to common folk.

Action: Using Diplomacy to influence a creature's attitude takes 1 minute of continuous interaction.. Making a request of a creature takes 1 or more rounds of interaction, depending upon the complexity of the request. Using Diplomacy to gather information takes 1d4 hours of work searching for rumors and informants.

Try Again: You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature's attitude more than once in a 24-hour period. If a request is refused, the result does not change with additional checks, although other requests might be made. You can retry Diplomacy checks made to gather information.

Special: If you have the Persuasive feat, you gain a bonus on Diplomacy checks (see Feats)."

So diplomacy does not

- Influence initial/starting attitude
- Last longer than 1d4 hours with GM intervention.

To change attitude with diplomacy you must

- Have 1 minute of continuous interaction
- Have not attempted in the last 24 hours

To request they must be

- At least indifferent
- Not someone you made a request of already that failed.

Now let us compare that to.

Charisma:

"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."

Note it is below "Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks." meaning it is separate from them.

So what would influence starting attitude. I think all of us would agree that circumstances would influence starting attitude with any reasonable GM.

What else says it is to be used on checks (mechanical term, not fluff) to influence others and unlike diplomacy doesn't have specific restrictions on how and when it can be used...hmm...

It has no time restrictions for how long it takes to use it or long it lasts once it is used, it does not say it doesn't apply to starting or initial attitudes.

It simply says "Checks that represent attempts to influence others."

Again, a game term. Not. Fluff.

Diplomacy makes you able to better persuade others to agree with your arguments, resolve differences, gather valuable information or rumors from people and to negotiate conflicts by using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the problem.

Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

These are two different things, with very different applications.

Why do I think this.

Because that is what it says in the book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

Charisma:

"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."

Wait..wait.

Objection! (insert ob Phoenix Wright picture here) If you're going to say that middle line is an arguement for using a flat Charisma check to determine initial reaction, you might as well be arguing that a ranged attack roll is a flat Dex check, since the language is the same.

(you apply your dex mod to:

ranged attack rolls..yadda yadda)

I won't go so far as to say it's fluff, but it seems clear to me that the intent of the ability score section provides direction on which ability score might apply to various skill checks. But since we have three skills that handle our attempts to influence others we should defer to those skills...just like we have a more specifically defined check for determining how to generate a ranged attack bonus (and Dex plays a part in it...just like you'd expect).

For the sake of completeness, I'll repeat my argument. Initial NPC attitude is something that is defined by the GM based on conditions that have nothing to do with the PCs or players (unless word of the PC's previous depredations or triumphs has reached this location, I suppose). There's no rule construct that tells you want the initial attitude should be. It's just part of the story.


ciretose wrote:
- Influence initial/starting attitude

And neither does Charisma. Stop citing the introductory blurb, it doesn't say that.

Quote:
Last longer than 1d4 hours with GM intervention.

Which the rules specifically encourage.

How long does a charisma check last? No one knows. What do you need to make it last longer? Dm intervention. What do you need to even HAVE a charisma check clock in at under a minute? Dm intervention because there's no rule for a charisma check doing anything other than influencing charm person or enthral.

Quote:

To change attitude with diplomacy you must

- Have 1 minute of continuous interaction
- Have not attempted in the last 24 hours

To request they must be

- At least indifferent
- Not someone you made a request of already that failed.

And Charisma checks helping you go around that is a house rule. Its not there.

We don't even know its POSSSIBLE to make a sub minute attempt to influence and NPC. You're assuming that its possible and that charisma is what does it.


Ciretose wrote:
You are saying what the book actually says you use for a check, a game term, is fluff. And the only case you seem to have is omission, asking me to prove a negative.

Quite the contrary, I've given you the opportunity to reference published materials that you have access to in order to demonstrate evidence of one of these alleged Charisma checks that you think are filling out the "narrow" uses of diplomacy.

29 instances of diplomacy in three scenarios is neither omission or attempting to prove a negative. You have so much positive evidence and this characterization of my argument is either ludicrous or disingenuous.

Quote:
It also provides a ton of limitations on the use of diplomacy that directly contradict your assertions about uses.

Quote me, my exact words, with one thing I've said that diplomacy does that it doesn't do.


Ciretose, have you considered that since the Charisma check/influence wording was removed from Diplomacy's description in PFRPG that it may have been an oversight to leave the same straggler verbage in the Charisma description? It wouldn't be the first piece of stray verbage in the CRB that got cleaned in one place but not in another.

There were no 3.5 core rules about NPC initial attitudes being mutable based on the characters' Charisma scores. That's all GM fiat. It's entirely plausible they removed the verbage from Diplomacy to make its use clearer and just biffed on scrubbing the confusing line from Charisma in the ability scores section.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's interesting thinking about examples of low charisma/high diplomact skilled people in real life or fiction:

Grima Wormtongue

Liberty's Edge

Zilvar2k11 wrote:
ciretose wrote:

Charisma:

"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."

Wait..wait.

Objection! (insert ob Phoenix Wright picture here) If you're going to say that middle line is an arguement for using a flat Charisma check to determine initial reaction, you might as well be arguing that a ranged attack roll is a flat Dex check, since the language is the same.

(you apply your dex mod to:

ranged attack rolls..yadda yadda)

You do apply your dex to ranged attack rolls. You also apply other modifiers like your base attack bonus, circumstance penalties like cover, etc...

"You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:

- Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and many ranged spell attacks like scorching ray or searing light.
- Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
- Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly.
- Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth checks."

As in you apply your dexterity to Ranged attack rolls. That you also apply other things...

EDIT: Also I never said a flat charisma check. I said it is one of the components a GM considers when setting initial assessment and a criteria, along with other circumstances, that would be considered in any determination of influence that doesn't fall under a skill check (diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, etc...)

So much like dex IS added to ranged attacks, Charisma IS a part of the equation for influence checks.

Which is exactly what it says.

Also, not really the same language at all.


And as soon as those Check DCs for using Charisma checks to influence people turn up I know I will. And you would think that if they existed someone would have mentioned by 7 pages in. Why it seems entirely possible that such rules don't exist, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and wait for you to produce them. Until then though... I think its safe to say you aren't going to be influencing anyone with a charisma check outside of the situations I listed.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ciretose wrote:
You are saying what the book actually says you use for a check, a game term, is fluff. And the only case you seem to have is omission, asking me to prove a negative.

Quite the contrary

Are you or are you not arguing that "Checks that represent attempts to influence others." is fluff.

And if it is not fluff, how can you take a position other than the words that it says mean what it says?

You talk about these references, actually cite the ones that don't follow the diplomacy as written.

Liberty's Edge

WRoy wrote:
Ciretose, have you considered that since the Charisma check/influence wording was removed from Diplomacy's description in PFRPG that it may have been an oversight to leave the same straggler verbage in the Charisma description?

Have you considered it isn't?

If for your argument to work you have to take a position that "It is there by mistake" I feel pretty good about my position.

But feel free to FAQ.

Liberty's Edge

Durinor wrote:

It's interesting thinking about examples of low charisma/high diplomact skilled people in real life or fiction:

Grima Wormtongue

And I think intentional.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:


We don't even know its POSSSIBLE to make a sub minute attempt to influence and NPC. You're assuming that its possible and that charisma is what does it.

What criteria do you use to determine initial or starting NPC attitude?

And if it doesn't include personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, why doesn't it?


ciretose wrote:

EDIT: Also I never said a flat charisma check. I said it is one of the components a GM considers when setting initial assessment and a criteria, along with other circumstances, that would be considered in any determination of influence that doesn't fall under a skill check (diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, etc...)

So much like dex IS added to ranged attacks, Charisma IS a part of the equation for influence checks.

Which is exactly what it says.

Also, not really the same language at all.

I think everyone thought you meant a flat charisma check since all the non-flat checks were skill checks like Diplomacy. If you mean charisma based skill checks, then most [all?] of the debate goes away.

/cevah

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:
ciretose wrote:

EDIT: Also I never said a flat charisma check. I said it is one of the components a GM considers when setting initial assessment and a criteria, along with other circumstances, that would be considered in any determination of influence that doesn't fall under a skill check (diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, etc...)

So much like dex IS added to ranged attacks, Charisma IS a part of the equation for influence checks.

Which is exactly what it says.

Also, not really the same language at all.

I think everyone thought you meant a flat charisma check since all the non-flat checks were skill checks like Diplomacy. If you mean charisma based skill checks, then most [all?] of the debate goes away.

/cevah

What I said and what I meant is that it is the check you use. If you have modifiers with the check, good. You should generally have circumstance modifiers.

But the language is nothing like Dex. It specifically says it is a check, period, full stop.

It says that.

If people handwave away considerations of charisma in home games when determining NPC interactions and what influences them, and they like that, great.

But it actually says, in the book, it is part of the check to influence people.

In skills, it is included. But it lists it separately from skills because the skill checks are not the only ways NPCs are influenced.

Not all checks are skill checks.


Cevah wrote:


I think everyone thought you meant a flat charisma check since all the non-flat checks were skill checks like Diplomacy. If you mean charisma based skill checks, then most [all?] of the debate goes away.

/cevah

Upon rereading his response to me for a third or fourth time, I'm not sure he means a check at all.

He seems to be talking about eyeballing it. 'higher charisma bonus, yay for you...lower charisma bonus, you suck'.

I believe that's pretty misguided because I don't think that 'charisma' is something that should be immediately apparent. We're no longer playing the old 1st edition game where a high charisma was a passive Charm Person spell to every weenie in the area ;)

Of course, the stat no longer contains the verbage about how a person could be attractive, but abrasive (dunno, your typical jerkoff sports star), or unattractive, but compelling (Hitler is the ur-example here, I think).


ciretose wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


We don't even know its POSSSIBLE to make a sub minute attempt to influence and NPC. You're assuming that its possible and that charisma is what does it.

What criteria do you use to determine initial or starting NPC attitude?

1) If I'm getting that technical with it its usually whatever the mod or scenario says it is.

2) The circumstances of the meeting and the peoples appearance, which may include how good looking they are or not. If a low cha rogue in studded leather carrying a dagger walks into the bloody knuckle, a well known wretched hive of scum and villiany he starts off at indifferent. If the high charisma Sir Brighton Brightblade steps off his white horse, carries his two handed sword into the place and flashes his dentine smile and showing off his symbol of Iomedae he's probably starting at hostile or unfriendly.

There are a LOT of factors going into this.

Quote:
And if it doesn't include personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, why doesn't it?

1) Because the mod doesn't say that its friendly if the charisma is X or indifferent if the charisma is less than X. I have NEVER seen anything like that.

2) Because personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance aren't always relevant.

3) I don't see a rule that equates personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance with starting attitude.


ciretose wrote:

But the language is nothing like Dex. It specifically says it is a check, period, full stop.

It says that.

No it doesn't.

You apply your Charisma modifier to:

Checks that represent attempts to influence others

You know...like bluff checks. Or diplomacy checks. Or inimidate checks. Or Charm Person-like checks.

You know..social checks.

I guess I see where you're coming from now, but I believe that's a very misguided read of the language.

(EDIT: better example)

Liberty's Edge

It is listed as a separate line below the skill checks.

It is separate.

There are checks that are not skill checks. Technically every time you pick something up it is a strength check, but we don't generally roll it unless there is a realistic failure chance.

Similarly we don't roll Dex checks to walk, but we generally do (or take 10) in order to walk across a narrow bridge.

Not all checks are skill checks. If it was only about skill checks, it wouldn't be a separate line below the skill checks.

It is nothing like the wording under dex.

Your argument ignores what the words in the book say.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

It is listed as a separate line below the skill checks.

It is separate.

There are checks that are not skill checks. Technically every time you pick something up it is a strength check, but we don't generally roll it unless there is a realistic failure chance.

Similarly we don't roll Dex checks to walk, but we generally do (or take 10) in order to walk across a narrow bridge.

Not all checks are skill checks. If it was only about skill checks, it wouldn't be a separate line below the skill checks.

It is nothing like the wording under dex.

Your argument ignores what the words in the book say.

This "assumption of perfection" really needs a snazzy name. Like the Stormwind and Oberoni fallacies. It's endemic to this board.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ciretose wrote:
Your argument ignores what the words in the book say.

No. You're just reading it differently.

You really, really need another note in this song. Everything you're saying hinges on your reading of one line in the book. You're extrapolating an incredible amount of stuff of your own creation from , and then treating that as if it were black and white raw, and ignoring points to the contrary. You keep firing more questions without answering anyone elses.


ciretose wrote:

It is listed as a separate line below the skill checks.

It is separate.

Already edited to include the better example.

ciretose wrote:


Similarly we don't roll Dex checks to walk, but we generally do (or take 10) in order to walk across a narrow bridge.

Pretty sure that's an Acrobatics check that can be used untrained.

ciretose wrote:
It is nothing like the wording under dex.

Whatever. I disagree. Move on.

ciretose wrote:
Your argument ignores what the words in the book say.

I am not ignoring words in the book, but neither am I reading stuff that is not present. NOTHING written into the Charisma writeup suggests, to me, any gameplay element that would influence your immediate reaction to any given player, BEFORE you've had a chance to interact with them.

(edit: improve quote breaking, unintended asshattery in final paragraph)

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ciretose wrote:
Your argument ignores what the words in the book say.

No. You're just reading it differently.

You really, really need another note in this song. Everything you're saying hinges on your reading of one line in the book. You're extrapolating an incredible amount of stuff of your own creation from , and then treating that as if it were black and white raw, and ignoring points to the contrary. You keep firing more questions without answering anyone elses.

I'm not the one arguing against what the words in the book say.

Liberty's Edge

Zilvar2k11 wrote:
ciretose wrote:


It is nothing like the wording under dex.

Your argument ignores what the words in the book say.

Whatever. I disagree. Move on.

How is it like the wording under dex. I posted both. They aren't remotely similar.

"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."

You apply your character's Dexterity modifier to:

"Ranged attack rolls, including those for attacks made with bows, crossbows, throwing axes, and many ranged spell attacks like scorching ray or searing light.
Armor Class (AC), provided that the character can react to the attack.
Reflex saving throws, for avoiding fireballs and other attacks that you can escape by moving quickly.
Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth checks."

But there is one way I guess they are similar. Would you apply it to ranged attacks other than with the weapons listed or spells listed?

Yes.

Would you apply Charisma to Checks that represent attempts to influence others that aren't listed in the sentence above...


(post deleted, made in anger. apologies)


Pupsocket wrote:


This "assumption of perfection" really needs a snazzy name. Like the Stormwind and Oberoni fallacies. It's endemic to this board.

I think you just gave it one.

Liberty's Edge

There is no issue of assumption of perfection.

There was a post saying "Maybe that was a mistake" to try to ignore something written in the rules.

It amazes me how the same people who scream "RAW" later scream "Except that, because...uh...it's fluff..."

Maybe something about "RAIWTR" or Rules as I want them to read...


4 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

There is no issue of assumption of perfection.

There was a post saying "Maybe that was a mistake" to try to ignore something written in the rules.

It amazes me how the same people who scream "RAW" later scream "Except that, because...uh...it's fluff..."

Maybe something about "RAIWTR" or Rules as I want them to read...

Look, there are two possibilities:

1) Straight Charisma checks are sometimes used to influence people.
2) The line about "influencing people" is a reference to Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate checks.

You are arguing for 1). Semantic analysis supports your argument. Everybody else is arguing for 2), and the only support for their arguments is everything written ever.

I can see how you're clearly winning this.


ciretose wrote:

There is no issue of assumption of perfection.

There was a post saying "Maybe that was a mistake" to try to ignore something written in the rules.

Except...I am not ignoring words in the book, but neither am I reading stuff that is not present. NOTHING written into the Charisma writeup suggests, to me, any gameplay element that would influence your immediate reaction to any given player, BEFORE you've had a chance to interact with them.

There is a solid example of a charisma check that falls under the category you are pointing at...Charm Person checks, and similar checks from related spells. There is no example, or implication, of using charisma to provide (or influence) a baseline NPC attitude. You're making that up.


Charisma has a direct influence on fame and reputation. Fame and reputation have a direct influence on NPC attitudes and reactions. (Or I suppose you could just say it's another form of currency flavored as NPC attitudes and reactions.)

Quote:
"Reputation represents how the general public perceives you, whether positively or negatively. This perception precedes you, speaking on your behalf when you are absent and determining how you can expect to be treated by those who have heard of you. Reputation means different things to different types of characters, reflected in the social and cultural values of different regions. a character who embodies the qualities of a hero in one region may be perceived as villainous or disreputable in another."
Quote:
"You begin play with a Fame equal to your character level + your Charisma modifier. Your Fame ranges from –100 to 100, with 0 representing a lack of any notoriety. Through the course of the campaign, your words and deeds help you build a reputation."

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/other-rules/reputation-an d-fame

That would be an example of Charisma directly affecting NPC interaction. I know this is separate from ciretose's argument, but I was seeing requests for an example. As well, quoted earlier were the rules for relationship scores. I could see this as being precedent for Charisma being used to determine the initial status of a PC in social interactions.

The rules are definitely not perfect and that should be taken into account. As such, if you NEED clarification, FAQ it. Otherwise, I could easily see the wording of "Checks that represent attempts to influence others" being extended to initial NPC reactions. It just seems like a logical extension and something most DMs do without much thought anyway. The NPC's initial attitude towards you is definitely affected by its own Cha modifier. Why then does the PC's modifier mean nothing?

Liberty's Edge

Pupsocket wrote:


Look, there are two possibilities:
1) Straight Charisma checks are sometimes used to influence people.
2) The line about "influencing people" is a reference to Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate checks.

You are arguing for 1). Semantic analysis supports your argument. Everybody else is arguing for 2), and the only support for their arguments is everything written ever.

I can see how you're clearly winning this.

Option 2 makes zero sense given it is a separate sentence directly following the listing of skills charisma effects. You don't need to reference something you just stated in, directly above what you are writing.

And "winning"...that is something that is an actual problem on here...the idea that of "winning" a discussion...

Many of us don't really worry about convincing the person on the opposite side and "winning" them over.

Many of us just don't like things that we think are clearly wrong to go unchallenged.

Let each person come to whatever conclusion they want in each game that makes the table happy.

But arguing that

"- Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
- Checks that represent attempts to influence others."

Is just two bullet points saying the exact same thing, for no particular reason, right after the other.

Or...crazy I know, maybe it means Charisma is what you use to influence people, when you aren't using the above listed skills in the applications listed under them.

Or the other position of "It is a mistake, because clearly I'm not wrong. I'm winning..."

Liberty's Edge

Zilvar2k11 wrote:
ciretose wrote:

There is no issue of assumption of perfection.

There was a post saying "Maybe that was a mistake" to try to ignore something written in the rules.

Except...I am not ignoring words in the book, but neither am I reading stuff that is not present. NOTHING written into the Charisma writeup suggests, to me, any gameplay element that would influence your immediate reaction to any given player, BEFORE you've had a chance to interact with them.

There is a solid example of a charisma check that falls under the category you are pointing at...Charm Person checks, and similar checks from related spells. There is no example, or implication, of using charisma to provide (or influence) a baseline NPC attitude. You're making that up.

And there is nothing in diplomacy that says it can be used for any purpose beyond listed.

And thank you for using the word "influence".

It doesn't say "influence for spells" it says influence. Why is it controversial to argue it means what it says?


MongoLikeCandy wrote:
The NPC's initial attitude towards you is definitely affected by its own Cha modifier. Why then does the PC's modifier mean nothing?

It doesn't mean nothing, its usually including in the diplomacy check.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

It is listed as a separate line below the skill checks.

It is separate.

There are checks that are not skill checks. Technically every time you pick something up it is a strength check, but we don't generally roll it unless there is a realistic failure chance.

Similarly we don't roll Dex checks to walk, but we generally do (or take 10) in order to walk across a narrow bridge.

Not all checks are skill checks. If it was only about skill checks, it wouldn't be a separate line below the skill checks.

It is nothing like the wording under dex.

Your argument ignores what the words in the book say.

So why is Charisma the only check that you seem to need to be forced?

Forgive me if I'm misreading, but your line of thinking seems to be something like this:

  • "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." (RAW)
  • "You apply your character's Charisma modifier to...Checks that represent attempts to influence others." (RAW)
  • Therefore all PCs must make Charisma checks when they meet someone (RAI)

Yet, for Strength or Dexterity, your line of thinking appears to be:

  • "Strength measures muscle and physical power." (RAW)
  • "You apply your character's Strength modifier to...Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like)." (RAW)
  • But we assume a PC can pick up a cup without making a check (RAI)

Do you not see the double standard? You're basically treating every social interaction like breaking down a door, when it should probably be more like lifting a cup.

If someone tries to pick a lock, it doesn't work like this:
GM: Roll Disable Device
PC: 25
GM: Okay now make a Dex check to see if you're dextrous enough to pick the lock
PC: Huh?


MongoLikeCandy wrote:

Charisma has a direct influence on fame and reputation. Fame and reputation have a direct influence on NPC attitudes and reactions. (Or I suppose you could just say it's another form of currency flavored as NPC attitudes and reactions.)

Interesting. Had to go hit the pfsrd to see where this is from. I am unfamiliar with UC and it's impact on a game world...However....(and, shoot..I wonder if I dreamed that post). Well, I swear I'd posted a throwaway line about player's previous actions having possible impact on NPC reactions, but I'm not seeing it.

Yes, I acknowledge that reputation should have an impact...past a certain point, perhaps the biggest impact. But reputation isn't charisma. Past second or third level, charisma is probably just a minor footnote in the overall score. But sure...it's there. I will have to read these rules and see what they're about, actually.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:
The NPC's initial attitude towards you is definitely affected by its own Cha modifier. Why then does the PC's modifier mean nothing?

Can you clarify what you mean here? I failed my comprehension check. Is this an artifact of the reputation rules you're talking about prior? An NPC's inital attitude toward you (baseline) is set by the GM and is based on whatever factors he or she deems appropriate. I, personally, don't think Charisma should be one of them. Charisma is what comes into play after you start interacting with the other party. Both party's modifiers are very relevant at this point.

Liberty's Edge

@redward - What double standard?

As I have said many, many time, most GMs don't roll a check in the same way they don't roll a check to "pick up a cup".

Your charisma is taken into consideration in the interaction.

Under strength it says

"- Melee attack rolls.
- Damage rolls when using a melee weapon or a thrown weapon, including a sling. (Exceptions: Off-hand attacks receive only half the character's Strength bonus, while two-handed attacks receive 1–1/2 times the Strength bonus. A Strength penalty, but not a bonus, applies to attacks made with a bow that is not a composite bow.)
- Climb and Swim checks.
- Strength checks (for breaking down doors and the like)."

And the like, meaning anything you would use muscle and physical power for that doesn't fall under a skill, you use a strength check.

No double standard.

If if falls under the skill, you use the skill. Not everything falls under the skill.

Liberty's Edge

Zilvar2k11 wrote:


Can you clarify what you mean here? I failed my comprehension check. Is this an artifact of the reputation rules you're talking about prior? An NPC's inital attitude toward you (baseline) is set by the GM and is based on whatever factors he or she deems appropriate. I, personally, don't think Charisma should be one of them. Charisma is what comes into play after you start interacting with the other party. Both party's modifiers are very relevant at this point.

"The DC of this check depends on the creature's starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

And there is nothing in diplomacy that says it can be used for any purpose beyond listed.

...What are you arguing again?

I think that some arguements have gotten crossed here (and I might also be to blame).

I am not arguing to use diplomacy to set baseline attitude. I don't care about diplomacy and am barely able to exercise it. I am arguing..or I think I am arguing..that Charisma has no place in establishing a baseline attitude. Now, apparently my argument is weakened if you use Ultimate Campaign, since your initial fame score includes Charisma, but I have not read those rules and do not know how much impact it has beyond Day 1, Level 1.

ciretose wrote:

And thank you for using the word "influence".

It doesn't say "influence for spells" it says influence. Why is it controversial to argue it means what it says?

Because it never says, in the sections you've quoted, anything related to what you claim.

IMO it's not only a house rule, it's a poor one.

At any rate, Ultimate Campaign has taken the wind out of my sails and shown me, again, that it's difficult to hold an argument if you don't keep up with the published material. Peace...I'm out.


ciretose wrote:

@redward - What double standard?

As I have said many, many time, most GMs don't roll a check in the same way they don't roll a check to "pick up a cup".

Your charisma is taken into consideration in the interaction.

So, to make sure I'm not misrepresenting you:

ciretose wrote:
I said it is one of the components a GM considers when setting initial assessment and a criteria, along with other circumstances, that would be considered in any determination of influence that doesn't fall under a skill check (diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, etc...)

Basically, party meets NPC. NPC's initial reaction to each party member is based on their Charisma and any other circumstances (drawn weapons, racial prejudice, etc.). Is that right? And if so, how does Charisma enter in to the equation? Is it a straight Charisma check for each PC? Opposed, or if not, what is the DC?


ciretose wrote:

"The DC of this check depends on the creature's starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier."

(I can't stay away!!!)

Ooooh. I see why I failed to understand. I didn't associate it that way. IME, people with a strong personality (high charisma) are harder to influence. That explained the higher DC. OK. Thanks for the reference.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
MongoLikeCandy wrote:
The NPC's initial attitude towards you is definitely affected by its own Cha modifier. Why then does the PC's modifier mean nothing?
It doesn't mean nothing, its usually including in the diplomacy check.

It means nothing to the NPC's initial attitude. I should clarify that I misspoke about NPC initial attitudes being affected by their Cha. It's clear that it just affects the Diplomacy DC to change their initial attitude during a check.

Still it could read: The DC of this check depends on the creature’s starting attitude toward you*. The starting attitude is* adjusted by its Charisma modifier.

However, I doubt it greatly.

Zilvar2k11 wrote:
Can you clarify what you mean here? I failed my comprehension check. Is this an artifact of the reputation rules you're talking about prior? An NPC's inital attitude toward you (baseline) is set by the GM and is based on whatever factors he or she deems appropriate. I, personally, don't think Charisma should be one of them. Charisma is what comes into play after you start interacting with the other party. Both party's modifiers are very relevant at this point.

Sorry, misread on my part. Still Cha ties directly into Fame and Reputation. Fame and reputation, I think most would agree, have something to do with NPC initial reactions. Even if it's just determining whether an NPC knows of the PCs and changes his attitude accordingly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry guys, I'm not going to get directly involved in your flame war. But to the OP...

SPCDRI wrote:

Well, after spending some time here after a long absence, I've been noticing people posting characters and the like and Intelligence and Charisma are in short supply, buddy!

7 or lower Intelligence, Charisma or Wisdom, or even 2 of the 3, doesn't just seem not as uncommon as I thought but rather de rigeur.

I can understand one shotting this to do something Iconic and silly and fun like Big Dumb Fighter, Grumpy Dwarf Combatant ("Oh, you want something that doesn't directly effect combat prowess? NO!") Kruggor The Social Psychopath Barbarian but really, those have to be pretty uncommon, right?
...
Also, how is that fun to roleplay consistently?
...
Is this just to squeeze the last +2 out to buff a guy in combat or is this legit? Do people sincerely play these Unlucky Number 7s and 6s a lot?

They are much more common in these forums than what I have seen in actual play. However, I have seen more of them than I expected to. Usually when I ask someone about it, it is because they have read the hyper focused uber build here on some optimization thread and are convinced they must do that to survive.

It is to get that last +1 on something and it is legit, but many do not like to play that way.

My only problem with it is when someone does not actually want to play their stats or when they whine incessantly about the effects of their stats.
I listened to a guy playing a barbarian with I think 7 wisdom and 9 intelligence, argue with the shipwright (using modern mechanics with equations) on how much armor plate he should be able to put on the sides of his sailing ship.
Last spring I had to put up with a guy that whined through almost the entire scenario that faction missions were impossibly difficult and he was bored if we weren't in combat. His fighter had Int 7, Wis 10, and cha 8. Every feat was an archery feat. His only skill that had more than a single point was perception.

Personally somewhere between 1/2 and 2/3 of the time, I dump a stat at least somewhat. But only one (either a mental or physical one depending upon the build). I rarely dump dex or int (I don't like having an actual penalty for init and AC also I like skill points). I never dump con (at least not anymore). Then I have fun playing those stats as best I can.

I have a dwarf with the inquisition domain, wisdom of 16, and a charisma of 5. He called the Merchant Prince a jack-hole then clearly and logically listed out all the reasons that our proposed course of action was really in his best interests.

I had a barbarian/cleric with a 7 intelligence and a 14 wisdom (that also put points into sense motive. "Gronk not know what you be saying, but Gronk be smelling lies when you be near. Gronk not like smell of lies!"

I had a gnome wizard with a strength of 6. He was either riding with his pony carrying virtually everything or he cast Ant Haul upon himself (which at low levels was pretty significant choice when I couldn't afford a mount and only had a few spells).


To be fair, your flat charisma modifier is used to determine your leadership score.

Shadow Lodge

ciretose wrote:
MongoLikeCandy wrote:
The NPC's initial attitude towards you is definitely affected by its own Cha modifier. Why then does the PC's modifier mean nothing?
Zilvar2k11 wrote:
Can you clarify what you mean here? I failed my comprehension check. Is this an artifact of the reputation rules you're talking about prior? An NPC's inital attitude toward you (baseline) is set by the GM and is based on whatever factors he or she deems appropriate. I, personally, don't think Charisma should be one of them. Charisma is what comes into play after you start interacting with the other party. Both party's modifiers are very relevant at this point.
"The DC of this check depends on the creature's starting attitude toward you, adjusted by its Charisma modifier."

Yes, the DC of your check to influence someone is adjusted by the target's charisma modifier in addition to the target's attitude. This is not the same thing as saying the starting attitude is adjusted by its charisma (or yours).

ciretose wrote:
How is that unreasonable? How is that not using the circumstances to determine initial attitude?

The problem is that an "unfriendly" attitude + unwillingness to listen for one minute = totally unable to use Diplomacy against the target. Some circumstances would justify that (the PC just got caught stealing the target's wallet; the PC is an elf in an orc village or vice-versa). However, making Charisma a deciding factor double-penalizes the low Cha character, first by giving them a penalty on the actual check, and secondly by preventing them from actually attempting the check in situations in which a Cha 8 or 10 or 14 character (where's the cut-off?) would be allowed to talk.

ciretose wrote:
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?

A strength 1 character can still lift 10 pounds over his head (any one-handed weapon and some 2-handers) and a strength 2 character can lift 20 pounds over his head (and two-handed weapon) so this would only ever come up with a ridiculously low-Str character and/or oversize weapons.

And even then the wizard could just use a lighter weapon to make a melee attack against the same target.

ciretose wrote:
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.

And by saying that in some situations you would make charisma the deciding factor between an unfriendly and indifferent starting attitude, and that these targets aren't willing to stick around for 1 minute of attitude improvement, you are by fiat prohibiting the cha 6 fighter from using any tool whatsoever to use diplomacy against certain targets.

"The strength-drained kobold can't lift the ogre's greatsword and must use a dagger" is not comparable to "Harsk the iconic ranger can't negotiate with the snooty noble" in terms of the limitations you are placing on the character.

This is assuming you're using the RAW definition of unfriendly rather than “the noble scowls and says 'make it quick, lout.'”

Diego Rossi wrote:

BTW, Ultimate Campaign has the rule you "want":

Ultimate campaign wrote:


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.

Awesome, an actual example of how the devs want Cha to work outside of skill checks. All other things equal, low cha characters have a harder time forming stable meaningful relationships. People don't like and trust them as easily, or think of them as "worthy adversaries." But since there's no penalty for a negative relationship score, a low cha character isn't prevented from forming these relationships, it's just slightly slower because your starting line is moved back with a gradient depending on your modifier.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:
Charisma has a direct influence on fame and reputation. Fame and reputation have a direct influence on NPC attitudes and reactions. (Or I suppose you could just say it's another form of currency flavored as NPC attitudes and reactions.)

Yay, another rule that uses raw charisma! Since you can make a Diplomacy check to increase your reputation, this is similar to the above rule in that the low-cha character has a slightly lower fame but the only penalty for increasing fame is the one already applied to Diplomacy.

Now, a Cha 7 or lower character does start with a negative fame, and the rules do note that non-evil NPCs may be unfriendly to “infamous” characters. So technically you could say that people within a 100-mile radius of level 1 Harsk default to unfriendly, but that'll be irrelevant within a level or two of Harsk doing adventure things. I think it's also against the intent – the specification that “nonevil” NPCs react negatively certainly suggests infamy is a moral judgment, not an issue of someone having an abrasive personality (since evil NPCs would be just as repelled by the latter).

Knight Magenta wrote:
To be fair, your flat charisma modifier is used to determine your leadership score.

This too. Seems like plenty of RAW support for your charisma mattering outside of cha-based skills without arbitrarily using cha to adjust starting attitudes.

Cevah wrote:

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.

I misunderstood. I have elsewhere seen people advocate encouraging roleplaying by giving a circumstance bonus/penalty according to the quality of the speech, not the effort put into it. While this may be realistic it can backfire by discouraging shy players with "face" characters. Absolutely agree that players who try to be part of the story should get perks, and that playing against type can be a lot of fun in a safe & cooperative environment. Some of the player vs GM rhetoric on the boards just makes me wonder how many people actually experience the game as safe & cooperative.

Liberty's Edge

redward wrote:
ciretose wrote:

@redward - What double standard?

As I have said many, many time, most GMs don't roll a check in the same way they don't roll a check to "pick up a cup".

Your charisma is taken into consideration in the interaction.

So, to make sure I'm not misrepresenting you:

ciretose wrote:
I said it is one of the components a GM considers when setting initial assessment and a criteria, along with other circumstances, that would be considered in any determination of influence that doesn't fall under a skill check (diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, etc...)
Basically, party meets NPC. NPC's initial reaction to each party member is based on their Charisma and any other circumstances (drawn weapons, racial prejudice, etc.). Is that right? And if so, how does Charisma enter in to the equation? Is it a straight Charisma check for each PC? Opposed, or if not, what is the DC?

All of that depends on the circumstances. I personally don't generally roll dice to see if an NPC thinks a 20 Charisma person seems more interesting that a 6 Charisma PC, in the same way I don't roll dice to see if you can pick up a cup.

Liberty's Edge

@Weirdo - Yes, there are some people you can't use diplomacy on because they will not give you an full minute of interaction.

That is exactly why it says you have to have a full minute of interaction, rather than saying diplomacy just works.

Because they need to be willing to give you a full minute of interaction.

And if you are very charismatic, they are more likely to do that than if you are not very charismatic, just like the Dos Equis guy can get your attention more than Milton from Office Space.


ciretose wrote:
All of that depends on the circumstances. I personally don't generally roll dice to see if an NPC thinks a 20 Charisma person seems more interesting that a 6 Charisma PC, in the same way I don't roll dice to see if you can pick up a cup.

But what is the check? Because you're claiming that one line is the RAW that allows you use Charisma to set initial reactions, but then you appear to be winging it on the actual implementation.

There's a rule for lifting the cup:
"Lifting and Dragging: A character can lift as much as his maximum load over his head. A character's maximum load is the highest amount of weight listed for a character's Strength in the heavy load column of Table: Carrying Capacity."

There's no such rule for meeting someone*.

*unless you adopt Ultimate Campaign's relationship rules, which I'm now right now reading for the first time


For PFS I have found that if you're not chewing the scenery then you're just another piece of cardboard on the set. The lack of continuity, time constraints, lack of tailoring for the adventure, lack of familiarity with the other players, and often lack of background between the players and the DM don't give you a heck of a lot of time to bring out a subtle personality.

So if I'm looking to build a character, stats of 9-13 loose a lot of their role playing appeal to me. Its one thing to HAVE a fighter that's just a little brighter than what you'd expect of someone that catches swords in the head for a living and its another thing to SHOW it in your limited screen time. Higher or lower stats help you break out into full on Sesquipedalian Loquaciousness or "Og grunt!" or justify some really memorable personality quirks.

In other words, the optimizer on one shoulder and the role player on the other get to high five each other and work together instead of fighting.


redward wrote:
ciretose wrote:
All of that depends on the circumstances. I personally don't generally roll dice to see if an NPC thinks a 20 Charisma person seems more interesting that a 6 Charisma PC, in the same way I don't roll dice to see if you can pick up a cup.

But what is the check? Because you're claiming that one line is the RAW that allows you use Charisma to set initial reactions, but then you appear to be winging it on the actual implementation.

-snip-

I'm assuming it's something akin to allowing a high intelligence character have hints for puzzles or the high wisdom character know he's making a bad decision. I don't believe there's specific rules for that, but it makes sense.

301 to 350 of 720 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How Many People Are Legitimately Running These "Social Incompetent" Builds Real World? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.