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.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-
Sure, but now we're talking house rules. Which is fine. But ciretose has been arguing that it's RAW, and I disagree with that interpretation.
Responding to the OP, since the active discussion has entered the realm of "there will never be a consensus":
I have a Dwarven Fighter named Thorngar with a Charisma of 5. Of course, the 5 Charisma was the point of the build, as the DM was new and I have a history of making high Charisma characters that are disruptive to the plot via making absurd Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate checks. Unfortunately, Thorngar's insane antics have resulted in him being a party favorite, even though he should be a social pariah.
However, I have seen this regularly occur in builds that one of my players makes. He is an absurd min-maxer. The first character he built was a Witch where he had dumped her physical stats to the point where there was only a ~20% chance an attack from the first enemies in the AP would leave her conscious. Yes . . . attack, not hit.
His first actual character was an Oracle of Lore with 6 Dex (so she could have 19 Charisma at level 1). One of the favorite moments of the campaign was when there was a sloping tunnel that required acrobatics checks (DC 10) to navigate. Failure cause you to slide uncontrollably and take damage. The oracle entered the tunnel, and a few rounds later her unconscious body slid out the other end, coming to a stop at the barbarian's feet.
His second character of in the campaign I run is a cavalier with, I believe, 7 Int. He didn't really dump anything else though.
His character in our Skull and Shackles campaign is a Gunslinger with 7 Int and 7 Cha, because he needed to get his Dex to 19 at level 1. Amusingly enough (to me at least), his "super optimized" character is not noticeably more effective than any of the rest of the party.
So . . . yes. There are people who actually play these builds. In my experience, unless the dump stat is the focus of the build . . . it is not worth it.
What criteria do you use to determine initial or starting NPC attitude?
I set a baseline attitude for an NPC based on who/what they are and the situation. Some possible examples:
Most inhabitants of a civilized settlement - indifferent to any PCs they have not previously dealt with.Armed guardsmen spotting PCs with contraband or breaking minor laws - unfriendly.
Half-orc thugs coming across the PCs on their turf - unfriendly, hostile to elves.
Temple guards spotting intruders in a santified area - hostile.
PCs can then use Bluff, Diplomacy and/or Intimidate as applicable to interact with the NPCs. Or fireball them, whatever.
And if it doesn't include personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, why doesn't it?
The factors that make up Charisma don't affect the initial attitude because they come into play when the PCs interact with the NPCs, after the initial attitude has been set.
|
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.
The line literally says it is the check. You act like I'm making it up.
What is the check to do a backflip? What is the check to make someone fall in love with you? What is the check to buy a ham sandwich?
Arguing by omission doesn't change what the rule says.
|
|
What criteria do you use to determine initial or starting NPC attitude?I set a baseline attitude for an NPC based on who/what they are and the situation. Some possible examples:
Most inhabitants of a civilized settlement - indifferent to any PCs they have not previously dealt with.
Armed guardsmen spotting PCs with contraband or breaking minor laws - unfriendly.
Half-orc thugs coming across the PCs on their turf - unfriendly, hostile to elves.
Temple guards spotting intruders in a santified area - hostile.PCs can then use Bluff, Diplomacy and/or Intimidate as applicable to interact with the NPCs. Or fireball them, whatever.
And if it doesn't include personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance, why doesn't it?The factors that make up Charisma don't affect the initial attitude because they come into play when the PCs interact with the NPCs, after the initial attitude has been set.
Finally, an answer.
What you described is circumstance, and I agree. Where we disagree is that for some reason you don't include personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Why? I have no idea.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Probably has been said before but here goes:
Charismatic Carol and Mundane Molly walk in to a bar (I swear this isn't a setup for a joke).
People in the bar immediately notices Charismatic Carol and tries to get her attention. When talking to her they might notice that although she's charismatic she isn't a great conversationalist, or she might be, doesn't matter for this example.
Mundane Molly on the other hand, gets no attention when entering the bar and has to initiate conversation herself. After talking to her for a while, the patrons notice she's actually really charming and a delight to be around, despite their initial (non-) reaction.
There's the difference between high charisma, and low charisma with high diplomacy. At least in real life.
I've met both types, and most probably have too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably has been said before but here goes:
Charismatic Carol ans Mundane Molly walk in to a bar (I swear this isn't a setup for a joke).
People in the bar immediately notices Charismatic Carol and tries to get her attention. When talking to her they might notice that although she's charismatic she isn't a great conversationalist, or she might be, doesn't matter for this example.
Mundane Molly on the other hand, gets no attention when entering the bar and has to initiate conversation herself. After talking to her for a while, the patrons notice she's actually really charming and a delight to be around, despite their initial (non-) reaction.
There's the difference between high charisma, and low charisma with high diplomacy. At least in real life.
I've met both types, and most probably have too.
Great example (similar were given).
There are several people in the thread however that will contend that this is not how things work, because there is no line in the book stating 'when two characters walk into a bar, use their charisma to decide how people react to them', and instead there is only a very generic 'use charisma for checks' line Ciretose has quoted a dozen times to no avail.
Honestly I was a bit concerned because I was agreeing with Ciretose. But then he started arguing with Ashiel. So as long as I'm not agreeing with both at the same time, the sun isn't about to go nova. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I keep telling people, you are going to come around. Over time I grow on people.
I'm like a fungus that way :)
What you described is circumstance, and I agree. Where we disagree is that for some reason you don't include personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
Why? I have no idea.
Where we truly disagree is with what is an initial attitude. Initial interaction to me is prior to Charisma coming into play at all; the GM has set it in his notes as being the NPC's initial attitude to an unknown PC in a given situation. The initial attitude is like those silly polls (redundant phrasing?) they put out for generic candidates of a political party... you know, how would candidate X match up vs. unnamed member of opposing party.
Two of the four partially-subjective elements of a character's personality that make up the Charisma score, personality and ability to lead, have absolutely zero to do with the initial attitude because the PC needs to interact (i.e., a Diplomacy check) with an NPC before they come into play. Of the other two facets of Charisma, personal magnetism should only affect a minority of situations before interaction and appearance's attractiveness to an individual is very subjective. There is no fair or equitable way to determine which percentage of Charisma is based off each of these factors, and it likely varies between situations. Because of this, it's best to not over-think the ability score's preemptive influence prior to actual interaction with the NPC. As a GM, you can either choose to apply your personal bias to how the entire gaming world treats the character or you can distance yourself from that and let the mechanics take over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Where we truly disagree is with what is an initial attitude. Initial interaction to me is prior to Charisma coming into play at all; the GM has set it in his notes as being the NPC's initial attitude to an unknown PC in a given situation. The initial attitude is like those silly polls (redundant phrasing?) they put out for generic candidates of a political party... you know, how would candidate X match up vs. unnamed member of opposing party.
Two of the four partially-subjective elements of a character's personality that make up the Charisma score, personality and ability to lead, have absolutely zero to do with the initial attitude because the PC needs to interact (i.e., a Diplomacy check) with an NPC before they come into play. Of the other two facets of Charisma, personal magnetism should only affect a minority of situations before interaction and appearance's attractiveness to an individual is very subjective. There is no fair or equitable way to determine which percentage of Charisma is based off each of these factors, and it likely varies between situations. Because of this, it's best to not over-think the ability score's preemptive influence prior to actual interaction with the NPC. As a GM, you can either choose to apply your personal bias to how the entire gaming world treats the character or you can distance yourself from that and let the mechanics take over.
Agreed on all counts.
I also think some people here are starting with the intent of making Charisma "matter" and looking for rules to support them, rather than starting by saying "what does Charisma do?" and following what's written.
I don't see how anyone can legitimately extrapolate:
"you apply your character's Charisma modifier to checks that represent attempts to influence others" to mean
"the rule as written is that you make a Charisma check when you meet someone, but you normally handwave it unless the GM doesn't like that Charisma is your dump stat, in which case he or she is free to have you make (and fail) a Charisma check so that the DC on your Diplomacy skill check is increased by the more hostile starting attitude."
|
@BigNorseWolf I'm confused here. I'm trying to argue that charisma adds or subtracts specific stated bonuses/penalties from specific stated situations (such as skill checks and charisma checks)... You seemed to be saying that charisma should have more importance because physical stats seemed to be more important... If you werent argueing that point then I fail.*headscratch* can't see where you're getting that.
I'm saying charisma is less important because
1) The game is more about beating things and looting their corpses than social interaction, so the social interaction stat loses prominence.
2) Charisma does almost nothing on its own if you're not a charisma based caster. Its primary function for non cha. based characters is to be a modifier to certain skills.
3) Even when social interaction comes up, the vast majority of social interaction can be done with skills. The flat bonus from charisma pales in comparison to skill ranks, traits, class features and magical doohickies that can obviate the minor penalties of a low charisma even if you want to do social skills.
In other words, this isn't a "Fair" or "Zero sum" game. Yes, charisma is punished. Its not really a why it just is.
Have you used the Relationship subsystem? I think that they added it more broadly in Ultimate Campaign, but it was originally in Jade Regent.
To greatly simplify it, there are Charisma rolls made every level for specific PCs, and if you succeed at them, you get bonus xp at certain breakpoints. (Technically, the rolls are Diplomacy or Intimidate, but the actual calculation depends on your base CHA modifier rather than your total skill.)
I read the rules for it, gave myself a nice CHA score even though it didn't help my underlying class (Rogue/Witch/Arcane Trickster). The other PCs all dumped CHA. And, long story short, my character is an entire level higher than the rest of the party, completely due to the bonus xp.
So a good CHA can be a very powerful thing, when using that system.
Also, Bluff is a combat skill when you have a Feint build.
EDIT: The rules are in the PRD here. I slightly misremembered how they worked. I thought your raw CHA modifier influenced the magnitude of the change in the Relationship score on a successful check, but it doesn't. However, your starting Relationship does equal your CHA modifier.
|
|
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?
When using the Relationship subsystem, that is exactly how it works.
Have you used the Relationship subsystem? I think that they added it more broadly in Ultimate Campaign, but it was originally in Jade Regent.
To greatly simplify it, there are Charisma rolls made every level for specific PCs, and if you succeed at them, you get bonus xp at certain breakpoints. (Technically, the rolls are Diplomacy or Intimidate, but the actual calculation depends on your base CHA modifier rather than your total skill.)
I read the rules for it, gave myself a nice CHA score even though it didn't help my underlying class (Rogue/Witch/Arcane Trickster). The other PCs all dumped CHA. And, long story short, my character is an entire level higher than the rest of the party, completely due to the bonus xp.
So a good CHA can be a...
Well , no chance my GM is running this system , but anyway i thought that the exp went to the whole party , not to a single PC , maybe i already forgot how it works.
|
|
Well , no chance my GM is running this system , but anyway i thought that the exp went to the whole party , not to a single PC , maybe i already forgot how it works.Have you used the Relationship subsystem? I think that they added it more broadly in Ultimate Campaign, but it was originally in Jade Regent.
To greatly simplify it, there are Charisma rolls made every level for specific PCs, and if you succeed at them, you get bonus xp at certain breakpoints. (Technically, the rolls are Diplomacy or Intimidate, but the actual calculation depends on your base CHA modifier rather than your total skill.)
I read the rules for it, gave myself a nice CHA score even though it didn't help my underlying class (Rogue/Witch/Arcane Trickster). The other PCs all dumped CHA. And, long story short, my character is an entire level higher than the rest of the party, completely due to the bonus xp.
So a good CHA can be a...
RAW, you are correct, though I believe that wasn't spelled out very clearly in the original Jade Regent rules. In our case, when my GM saw the clarification, he couldn't understand why the other party members would get xp for my character's unwavering pursuit of romance with Ameiko, (and undying rivalry with Sandru) so he declared that he did not intend to split the xp. (I didn't push that, but needless to say, I didn't argue either.)
|
|
Where we truly disagree is with what is an initial attitude. Initial interaction to me is prior to Charisma coming into play at all; the GM has set it in his notes as being the NPC's initial attitude to an unknown PC in a given situation. The initial attitude is like those silly polls (redundant phrasing?) they put out for generic candidates of a political party... you know, how would candidate X match up vs. unnamed member of opposing party.
Two of the four partially-subjective elements of a character's personality that make up the Charisma score, personality and ability to lead, have absolutely zero to do with the initial attitude because the PC needs to interact (i.e., a Diplomacy check) with an NPC before they come into play. Of the other two facets of Charisma, personal magnetism should only affect a minority of situations before interaction and appearance's attractiveness to an individual is very subjective. There is no fair or equitable way to determine which percentage of Charisma is based off each of these factors, and it likely varies between situations. Because of this, it's best to not over-think the ability score's preemptive influence prior to actual interaction with the NPC. As a GM, you can either choose to apply your personal bias to how the entire gaming world treats the character or you can distance yourself from that and let the mechanics take over.
Agreed on all counts.
Appearance isn't part of initial assessment?
Personal magnetism isn't part of initial assessment.
It seems to me that you all are looking for any reason not to include charisma?
You are including tons of subjective measures as circumstances, but if one points out that Charisma actually says it governs influence...to quote the joker "Everybody loses their mind"
Appearance isn't part of initial assessment?
Personal magnetism isn't part of initial assessment.
It seems to me that you all are looking for any reason not to include charisma?
It seems to me you didn't read my post; you're taking more liberties with this than you did even with my previous. I'm not sure what else to say, because I choose to not engage in discussion where not only the distance to the goalposts change but the actual field is rewritten from post to post.
|
|
It seems to me you didn't read my post; you're taking more liberties with this than you did even with my previous. I'm not sure what else to say, because I choose to not engage in discussion where not only the distance to the goalposts change but the actual field is rewritten from post to post.Appearance isn't part of initial assessment?
Personal magnetism isn't part of initial assessment.
It seems to me that you all are looking for any reason not to include charisma?
Not agreeing is not the same as not reading.
You list a ton of subjective things you account for and dismiss ones that you don't, despite it being listed as something that effects influence.
What you decide to value, with nothing in the book at all, you account for.
But you apparently minimize or negate the only thing in the book that says it influences NPCs without constraints.
That make no sense to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Appearance isn't part of initial assessment?
Personal magnetism isn't part of initial assessment.
It seems to me that you all are looking for any reason not to include charisma?
You are including tons of subjective measures as circumstances, but if one points out that Charisma actually says it governs influence...to quote the joker "Everybody loses their mind"
No, I wouldn't include personal magnetism, for the reasons WRoy already detailed. As for appearance...
Consider a different group of individuals entering the bar in Montana77's anecdote. Only now Charismatic Carol is a Qlippoth-spawn Tiefling with 18 Charisma, and Mundane Molly is an Anglekin Aasimar with a mere 14 Charisma (still normal, according to Jiggy's commoner breakdown).
Charismatic Carol, as a Qlippoth-spawn, is "covered in barbed tentacles, oozing tumors, crudely shaped and stunted appendages, pieces of carapace, or other defects". Plain old Mundane Molly, on the other hand, "possess features with an unearthly charm, such as long, thick hair of a seemingly impossible hue, and limpid, jeweltoned eyes."
Who's getting all the free drinks in this situation?
Depends on the bar, I expect will be the response. And sure, but unless you have a party of all humans going to an all-human bar, you're immediately comparing apples to oranges with oozing tumors. It's all subjective.
I just don't think "you apply your character's Charisma modifier to checks that represent attempts to influence others" gives you the all-encompassing mandate that you seem to think it does.
|
|
Personal Magnetism is literally...well...personal magnetism.
Mundane Molly isn't a 14. A 14 is exceptionally charismatic, relative to most people.
Not mundane in the least.
And that Tiefling with an 18 Charisma, assuming circumstantial modifiers don't come into play, is very, very impressive. I certainly would presume if they had an 18 charisma the room would note them as someone of importance.
If the bartender is inclined to give out free drinks, I would presume he would give them out to someone as impressive as an 18 charisma, and possibly to the 14 charisma as well.
Unless of course, he doesn't like Qlippoth-tieflings.
Which is quite likely.
What you seem to be arguing is that the bartender wouldn't even notice how impressive the 18 charisma person is.
Which I think is not only contrary to what the rules say, but punishes high charisma and rewards low charisma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personal Magnetism is literally...well...personal magnetism.
Mundane Molly isn't a 14. A 14 is exceptionally charismatic, relative to most people.
Then drop it to 12. Or 10. Or whatever. Point being, a Tiefling with stunted appendages growing out of random spots is not likely to win any beauty pageants regardless of his Charisma.
What you seem to be arguing is that the bartender wouldn't even notice how impressive the 18 charisma person is.
Which I think is not only contrary to what the rules say, but punishes high charisma and rewards low charisma.
Whereas I think that what you're advocating amounts to the same kind of "double jeopardy". Your penalty for a low Charisma is represented by your penalty to Charisma-based skills, and Charisma-checks (like the opposed check in Charm Person). I don't see any justification for doubling up on that by adding extraneous Charisma checks on top of the skill checks.
|
|
And it isn't a beauty pageant.
And it isn't double jeopardy.
It is actually giving people with high scores the benefit of the scores. If you have an 18 charisma, you are impressive. Maybe not pretty, but definitely impressive.
The Dos Equis man isn't Brad Pitt, but he is the most interesting person in the world.
Your position is that acknowledging that is "double jeopardy"? That is like saying giving swim bonuses in addition to melee attack bonuses is double jeopardy for strength.
No, it is two things that strength governs.
There is a saying: "Something is the exception that proves the rule". Charisma governs appearance. The fact that you have to say "Well, what about these specific circumstances..." says that this is the norm and the specific circumstances are just those - specific circumstances, not the norm. I think the fact that there are scenarios like this may be why the rule isn't more tightly "hardcoded".
I want to stress what I said earlier. We're talking about a world full of humans and dwarves, orcs and elves. Trying to uphold some universal quantification of beauty is impossible. Such that I'd say that applying some kind of "appearance" Charisma check should be the exception, rather than the rule.
However, let's not try to pretend he isn't considered functionally deformed by his society's standards and doesn't have a huge gash across his face while we talk about what happens when he walks into a bar.
If someone wants to tank their Charisma, for whatever reason (roleplay, min-max, etc.), they shouldn't be re-penalized when they try to build up a competency in Diplomacy. They've already taken their penalty.
If I were a player, and my shriveled little troll of a wizard made a miraculous natural 20 on his Diplomacy (giving me a 17!), I'd be pretty upset if the GM then had me fail because "you're too ugly."
Sure, but now we're talking house rules. Which is fine. But ciretose has been arguing that it's RAW, and I disagree with that interpretation.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.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-
Well to be fair, I have seen "Give the players an intelligence check" in modules.
This is where it seems like there is an attempt to (unfairly) minimize the effects of a low Charisma score. Why did the lowly troll of a wizard get a chance to talk to the hot chick to get the Diplomacy roll in the first place. As I said in an earlier post, "(Hand to the face, singing in a TLC voice) NO! I don't want your number...".
Okay. But does the same apply to the 18 Charisma Tiefling?
I like to dump Wisdom on a lot of my characters. Should I miss seeing things even after I've dumped a ton of skill points and feats into increasing my Perception score?
In general, I think that if you're making rules because you don't like that a player is succeeding, it may be worth re-evaluating your motivation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just going to say, even in a world with only humans in it, we can't reach one hundred percent agreement about what is and isn't attractive. Sure, there some things that most people would agree on, but there is still a lot of room for varying opinions. Saying that world with a couple dozen humanoid species in it can get that sort of consensus...
Is "success" in this case defined as minimizing the negative effects of a low score?
Success is succeeding. So making the skill check.
If my Wisdom is 7, but I pick up Skill Focus (Perception), put in a rank every level, and gear up with some Eyes of Keen Sight (6000gp), I think I've earned the right to attempt* at a Perception check.
Similarly, if my 7 Charisma Inquisitor picks up the Conversion Inquisition (to apply Wisdom to Diplomacy), I've sacrificed one of my class features for that benefit. I could have picked up the Growth domain for (essentially) at-will Enlarge Person. I've chosen to dedicate resources to something.
How do you feel about some who picks up Weapon Finesse and an Agile Weapon? They've circumvented the need for Strength in combat! Does that not frustrate you?
EDIT: You know, that does lead to a way to help bridge the understanding. What IS the negative effect to a low Charisma score (or low Wisdom score) in this paradigm?
"Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition."
So if my 7 Wisdom character chooses to skirt the reach of a Large creature, should I have to make a Wisdom check?
I'm not saying the answer is no, but I also think that if you're going to apply such checks to one ability, you're obligated to apply them across the board.
*edited from "succeed". I don't think I have the right to succeed. I do think I have the right to a fair shot.
|
|
I'm sorry, does it say under wisdom that you use a wisdom to avoid reach?
"You apply your character's Wisdom modifier to:
-Will saving throws (for negating the effects of charm person and other spells).
- Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive, and Survival checks."
Nope.
Does it say you use Charisma on checks that represent attempts to influence others?
"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."
Yes.
So...not the same thing, is it?
I'm sorry, does it say under wisdom that you use a wisdom to avoid reach?
"You apply your character's Wisdom modifier to:
-Will saving throws (for negating the effects of charm person and other spells).
- Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive, and Survival checks."Nope.
Does it say you use Charisma on checks that represent attempts to influence others?
"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."Yes.
So...not the same thing, is it?
Cool. Where are we on making Strength checks for everything? We did agree those are equivalent, yes?
Why is a 7 Str PC not obligated to make an ability check to lift his backpack while a 7 Cha PC is obligated to make an ability check to enter a room?
I haven't heard an answer to "What is the negative repercussion to a low Charisma or Wisdom in this paradigm?"
Which paradigm? The game as written? My interpretation? Ciretose's?
I'll answer mine.
The repercussion is that you're not naturally inclined towards the skills and other associations with that ability. So you have to work harder to achieve success in these areas. If I'm born weak, I'm not naturally a strong swimmer, but I can train to change that (ranks in Swim).
If I'm born with low Charisma, I'm not naturally magnetic or conventionally attractive, so I have to find ways to make myself more convincing or appealing in conversation (ranks in Diplomacy).
If I'm born with low Wisdom, I'm not naturally perceptive (among other things), so I must train myself to notice things (ranks in Perception).
|
|
I'm sorry, does it say under wisdom that you use a wisdom to avoid reach?
"You apply your character's Wisdom modifier to:
-Will saving throws (for negating the effects of charm person and other spells).
- Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive, and Survival checks."Nope.
Does it say you use Charisma on checks that represent attempts to influence others?
"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."Yes.
So...not the same thing, is it?
Cool. Where are we on making Strength checks for everything? We did agree those are equivalent, yes?
Why is a 7 Str PC not obligated to make an ability check to lift his backpack while a 7 Cha PC is obligated to make an ability check to enter a room?
Except there are encumbrance rules for weight, but if not.
"You apply your character's Strength modifier to:
- 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)."
So I guess you would generally use a strength check for anything strength based not outline elsewhere in the rules, correct?
Or would you substitute a swim or climb check?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think things are always "fair". Again, look at Tyrion Lannister. When he walks into a scenario, he is instantly ridiculed and looked down upon (low Charisma). However, unless you are his father, you don't walk away from talking to him and get the better of him (high Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate). Does he fail a skill roll? Not according to HBO.
That said, due to his low Charisma, he has to get into / manipulate a scenario to utilize his incredible skills.
I'm not familiar with the character.
That said, I have nothing wrong with circumstantial bonuses or penalties. But I do have a problem with someone saying "okay, and I'm applying a circumstance penalty equal to your Charisma score on this Diplomacy check." Do you mean the same penalty that's already been applied?
Because that penalty is the one that accounts for my appearance. It's in there. I'm sorry if you don't think it's enough. House rule that Charisma bonuses and penalties are twice that of other abilities if you like. But be aware that it's a house rule.
All I'm seeing in this thread is "I don't think Charism is adequately portrayed." That's a perfectly valid criticism. But to account for that will either take a house rule or the mental gymnastics necessary to convert "you apply your character's Charisma modifier to checks that represent attempts to influence others" to "initial attitude of an NPC is based on a charisma check, feel free to set your own DC."
Anyway, I've said all I can on the matter.
If you think a PC circumventing a low Charisma score with resources is a problem, I'll still need an explanation on why Weapon Finesse and an Agile Weapon is not in order to be convinced.
So I guess you would generally use a strength check for anything strength based not outline elsewhere in the rules, correct?
I would. But I would not claim that the Strength check and DC I had to make up on the spot were RAW, but rather my interpretation of how to apply the rules we have for a situation they don't cover. You seem unwilling to concede that point.
|
|
But you would assign a check, and you admit that the check would be a strength check, because that is what it says under strength.
Why not the same application, since it says under charisma "Checks that represent attempts to influence others."
And unless I am mistaken, I don't believe starting attitude is "covered"?
|
|
@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.
Have you considered that getting someone to stick around for the whole minute is part of the diplomacy check? It states that you need a minute in order to make it clear that you can't use diplomacy in combat, or when you're in a rush, but that simply getting someone to pay attention to you for a minute is part of the success condition of an attempted diplomacy check, just like not drowning is part of the success condition of an attempted swim check? It is entirely plausible that a failed diplomacy check is due to having a poor “elevator pitch” and losing your target's interest before the minute is actually granted.
This is similar to how one attack roll both determines whether you make contact with the enemy and also whether you are able to bypass their armour, rather than having to roll once against a “dodge AC” and a second time against an “armour AC.”
And it isn't double jeopardy.
...Your position is that acknowledging that is "double jeopardy"? That is like saying giving swim bonuses in addition to melee attack bonuses is double jeopardy for strength.
Yes it is. You are requiring two checks to succeed at a single task – to influence someone – by requiring that the low cha person first obtain the target's attention before actually attempting to improve their attitude using a Diplomacy check.
Melee attack rolls and swim checks are two entirely different tasks that both happen to be based on strength. It's slightly more like melee attack rolls and melee damage rolls, but it's possible to decouple either from the Str mod, and there plenty of alternative strategies for reaching the end goal of “deal damage” such that a character isn't required to go strength or forget about damage.
Well to be fair, I have seen "Give the players an intelligence check" in modules.
But you haven't seen “give players a charisma check”?
I don't think things are always "fair". Again, look at Tyrion Lannister. When he walks into a scenario, he is instantly ridiculed and looked down upon (low Charisma). However, unless you are his father, you don't walk away from talking to him and get the better of him (high Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate). Does he fail a skill roll? Not according to HBO.
That said, due to his low Charisma, he has to get into / manipulate a scenario to utilize his incredible skills.
That's fine by me as long as long as the person who snickers at first sticks around long enough for Tyrion to open his mouth and make that skill roll (should Tyrion actually decide to make the effort). If people are just walking away before he can open his mouth, that's a problem because it has neutralized the entire “bad first impression but very socially canny” concept.
I have no problem with low cha characters making a bad first impression, I just think that they shouldn't be prevented from changing that impression through social skills should they make the effort to do so.
So I guess you would generally use a strength check for anything strength based not outline elsewhere in the rules, correct?I would. But I would not claim that the Strength check and DC I had to make up on the spot were RAW, but rather my interpretation of how to apply the...
Really this comes down to if NPCs can make snap judgements. If they can't then you may as well just use Diplomacy and other skills. Charisma is useless and the attribute description is redundant for some reason. Mentioning that Charisma factors into the social skills twice on the same page, even.
Does a NPC's Charisma factor into how you would describe him to players? Why not the inverse? Can't a noble NPC look at Smeagol, see the skeevy look in his eye, his bedraggled appearance, smell his fishy breath, and decide by first impression that he isn't worth talking to? Can't a helpless peasant pick the most dashing and impressive party member to approach instead of Sulky McLonelyhero of Nocharismaland for justifiable reasons?
I don't think anyone's trying to negate your low charisma - high diplomacy character. I think what is being said is that Charisma matters in social situations and the Charisma attribute description seems to even mention it. The ignoring a character example if just an extreme example, I'd say.
But you haven't seen “give players a charisma check”?This was in response to mentioning ability checks with arbitrary DCs as being house rule territory.
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*.
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.Sure, but now we're talking house rules. Which is fine. But ciretose has been arguing that it's RAW, and I disagree with that interpretation.
But you would assign a check, and you admit that the check would be a strength check, because that is what it says under strength.
Why not the same application, since it says under charisma "Checks that represent attempts to influence others."
And unless I am mistaken, I don't believe starting attitude is "covered"?
I conceded the point. You ignored mine. That is frustrating.
To be crystal clear:
ciretose's position :
- Charisma checks represent attempts to influence others
- Therefore the GM is allowed/required to determine what those checks are and when they should be used
- Therefore using a Charisma check to determine the initial attitude of an NPC is RAW.
redward's position:
- I agree that Charisma covers a character's appearance (RAW)
- I agree that there is such a thing as a Charisma check (RAW), however, Charisma checks are defined in the CRB, usually as opposed checks in spells (like Charm Person) or binding summoned creatures. This accounts for that line in the Charisma description.
- Any other use of a Charisma check may be the appropriate option, but it is a house rule (or interpretation or extension of the RAW if you consider "house rule" a dirty phrase)
- One could determine initial attitude as an opposed Charisma check, but this would be a house rule, as it is not defined anywhere in the RAW
---
To bring this back to the real world (always a bad idea, but here we go): if I meet someone, and I consider them ugly, my starting attitude does not change from "friendly" to "indifferent" compared to meeting someone of average beauty. And I consider myself about as shallow as the next guy.
What about the other direction? Well, if I meet a beautiful woman, I may be more inclined to help her ("friendly"). I may feel intimidated (let's bump it up to "helpful"). Or I may be resentful ("unfriendly" or "hostile") due to my lack of success with the ladies. Or I may be gay.
That's a lot of ways it could go. Kind of seems like the starting attitude depends a whole lot more on me (the NPC, in this case) than her (the PC).
On the other hand, if someone is rude to me, through actions and words, my attitude will quite certainly change. This is someone failing their Diplomacy check.
Is "success" in this case defined as minimizing the negative effects of a low score?Success is succeeding. So making the skill check.
*edited from "succeed". I don't think I have the right to succeed. I do think I have the right to a fair shot.
I don't think things are always "fair". Again, look at Tyrion Lannister. When he walks into a scenario, he is instantly ridiculed and looked down upon (low Charisma). However, unless you are his father, you don't walk away from talking to him and get the better of him (high Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate). Does he fail a skill roll? Not according to HBO.
That said, due to his low Charisma, he has to get into / manipulate a scenario to utilize his incredible skills.
It's a tangent, but I don't see how anyone can call Tyrion uncharismatic. The main reason he has such a hard time is that dwarfism carries a huge social stigma in Westeros (In Pathfinder terms, he's taking a huge circumstance penalty).
|
|
But you haven't seen “give players a charisma check”?This was in response to mentioning ability checks with arbitrary DCs as being house rule territory.
Sure, but my point was:
1) Intelligence checks for hints are found within published modules.
2) Charisma checks used to determine initial attitude are absent from published modules that mention NPC attitudes.
3) Therefore, "charisma can mode initial attitude up or down a step" has less support in RAW than "intelligence checks can be used to get hints" and the latter, while common practice, is not generally seen as RAW.
Really this comes down to if NPCs can make snap judgements. If they can't then you may as well just use Diplomacy and other skills. Charisma is useless and the attribute description is redundant for some reason. Mentioning that Charisma factors into the social skills twice on the same page, even.
Using a charisma check in a situation where an NPC must make a snap judgment and Diplomacy can't be used seems reasonable to me. Using a charisma check as a pre-requisite or gatekeeper for allowing a PC to make a diplomacy check does not seem reasonable to me because in a situation in which the RAW says diplomacy can be used (you have a minute to talk) Diplomacy should be used.
I like how the people I disagree with in this thread fall neatly into two camps:
1) Gygaxians like Ciretose.
2) "Low ability scores is an excuse to be disruptive because I'm just roleplaying my character, you guys.
Using a charisma check in a situation where an NPC must make a snap judgment and Diplomacy can't be used seems reasonable to me. Using a charisma check as a pre-requisite or gatekeeper for allowing a PC to make a diplomacy check does not seem reasonable to me because in a situation in which the RAW says diplomacy can be used (you have a minute to talk) Diplomacy should be used.
I think I'd possibly add to that, that a charisma check might even be used where you're looking to get a busy person to stop and pay attention for long enough to use diplomacy. I wouldn't say it's the only way, but I'd certainly consider it as a possible option (along with drawing a weapon on them, locking the door to stop them leaving, arranging for them to accidently trip over and talking while you help them pick up their things, etc.) If a player said "I flash my best smile and say 'hi, do you have a second?'" then it's probably what I'd use in that instance.
Inventive use of ability (and skill) checks has long been a staple of on-the-fly GMing. That isn't to say it's something every GM should do if they're not comfortable with it. I'd put it more down to table variance from GM preferences than house ruling, though.
But you haven't seen “give players a charisma check”?This was in response to mentioning ability checks with arbitrary DCs as being house rule territory.Sure, but my point was:
1) Intelligence checks for hints are found within published modules.
2) Charisma checks used to determine initial attitude are absent from published modules that mention NPC attitudes.
3) Therefore, "charisma can mode initial attitude up or down a step" has less support in RAW than "intelligence checks can be used to get hints" and the latter, while common practice, is not generally seen as RAW.
Well, I only bring up modules since someone earlier was screaming for module examples as proof. At least Charisma affecting social situations outside of skill checks has an entry in the attribute description in the Pathfinder Handbook. Even if it is of dubious quality and up to interpretation. Do intelligence/wisdom checks have any mention of this sort?
Really this comes down to if NPCs can make snap judgements. If they can't then you may as well just use Diplomacy and other skills. Charisma is useless and the attribute description is redundant for some reason. Mentioning that Charisma factors into the social skills twice on the same page, even.Using a charisma check in a situation where an NPC must make a snap judgment and Diplomacy can't be used seems reasonable to me. Using a charisma check as a pre-requisite or gatekeeper for allowing a PC to make a diplomacy check does not seem reasonable to me because in a situation in which the RAW says diplomacy can be used (you have a minute to talk) Diplomacy should be used.
I'd agree with an exception. Charisma should be applied in situations in which social skills have not yet been applied. Not just in ones where they cannot be applied.
To bring this back to the real world (always a bad idea, but here we go): if I meet someone, and I consider them ugly, my starting attitude does not change from "friendly" to "indifferent" compared to meeting someone of average beauty. And I consider myself about as shallow as the next guy.
What about the other direction? Well, if I meet a beautiful woman, I may be more inclined to help her ("friendly"). I may feel intimidated (let's bump it up to "helpful"). Or I may be resentful ("unfriendly" or "hostile") due to my lack of success with the ladies. Or I may be gay.
That's a lot of ways it could go. Kind of seems like the starting attitude depends a whole lot more on me (the NPC, in this case) than her (the PC).
On the other hand, if someone is rude to me, through actions and words, my attitude will quite certainly change. This is someone failing their Diplomacy check.
All of these examples lead me to believe that the woman's physical beauty (to exemplify high charisma) is having a definite effect upon the NPC attitudes. You're just listing the different possible effects. No one said high Cha HAD to be a positive effect upon NPC attitude. Nor are they saying it is the only thing to affect NPC attitudes.
Besides, what if the PC was not only pretty, but had an approachable demeanor? Something I might translate as a higher Cha. Would that have an effect upon the happy, sappy, and grumpy NPCs?
I like how the people I disagree with in this thread fall neatly into two camps:
1) Gygaxians like Ciretose.
2) "Low ability scores is an excuse to be disruptive because I'm just roleplaying my character, you guys.
I like lumping people together into simplistic groups too! We should be friends.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how the people I disagree with in this thread fall neatly into two camps:
1) Gygaxians like Ciretose.
2) "Low ability scores is an excuse to be disruptive because I'm just roleplaying my character, you guys.
There are only two types of people in this world, those that believe in dichotomies and those that don't.
|
|
I think I'd possibly add to that, that a charisma check might even be used where you're looking to get a busy person to stop and pay attention for long enough to use diplomacy. I wouldn't say it's the only way, but I'd certainly consider it as a possible option (along with drawing a weapon on them, locking the door to stop them leaving, arranging for them to accidently trip over and talking while you help them pick up their things, etc.) If a player said "I flash my best smile and say 'hi, do you have a second?'" then it's probably what I'd use in that instance.
Inventive use of ability (and skill) checks has long been a staple of on-the-fly GMing. That isn't to say it's something every GM should do if they're not comfortable with it. I'd put it more down to table variance from GM preferences than house ruling, though.
Nice thought, but see above comments re: double jeopardy being unfair and re: catching attention being part of the diplomacy check.
I'd agree with an exception. Charisma should be applied in situations in which social skills have not yet been applied. Not just in ones where they cannot be applied.
Agreed. If you don't choose to take the time / make the effort to make a diplomacy check your raw cha informs peoples' reactions. Just so long as this doesn't prevent you from making a diplomacy check if you choose to apply the skill.
There should be no "talk to the hand" for low cha diplomats.
EDIT: That is to say, if the player says "I chat with the guy to make him friendly," the GM should say "roll Diplomacy," not "make a Cha check to see if he pays attention to you" or (without a roll) "he tells you he's not interested in talking to losers."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like how the people I disagree with in this thread fall neatly into two camps:
1) Gygaxians like Ciretose.
2) "Low ability scores is an excuse to be disruptive because I'm just roleplaying my character, you guys.
Ciretose is a Gygaxian? I laugh at the thought.
And since you haven't elaborated, what exactly is your position on the topic at hand?
Weirdo,
Are you saying that the NPCs are required to allow the minute if the check succeeds? And that it is part of that check?
If so, I ask you this, how will you respond when the Intimidator does the same thing in combat, forcing the enemy to allow him 6 rounds to scare him into being intimidated? Not demoralized, intimidated. For that matter, how do you stop the Diplomat from stopping combat to make his diplomacy attempt? Nothing in the skill says you can't make the attempt in combat, and it has DC's for Hostile (which an enemy presumably is).
I think your assumption that the check includes getting the minute is flawed for this reason. No matter how good your roll on the diplomacy check is, if the guy never stops running away from the rampaging t-rex, you're not going to be able to talk him into cutting you free from the stake before the t-rex eats you.