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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 720 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

Weirdo wrote:


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."

Well, I could see situations where it would make sense. Not that it necessarily makes it desirable.

What if the magician asks for a volunteer from the crowd and you really want it to be you? Unfortunately, everyone else in the crowd raises their hand too. Obviously, the magician isn't going to pick the person who raised their hand most politely, forcefully, or sincerely. He's just likely to pick someone who is most attractive (not necessarily physically) to him. How does the Rockstar Bard choose which groupies to have the roadies bring backstage? Diplomacy?

But in the end, I agree with you. I'm just playing devil's advocate at this point. Situations where Cha is the sole deciding factor of a social encounter are and should be nearly non-existent.


Matt Thomason wrote:

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.

I think if the NPC was indifferent or better the could use the 'make a request' function of diplomacy for this


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moro wrote:


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?

My position on the topic is this: "Character capabilities are character capabilities". Ability scores are not somehow way more meaningful than other numbers on the sheet. Someone with a good Acrobatics modifier is nimble, someone with high modifiers in several knowledge skills is well-educated, someone with high Perception and Sense Motive is very aware, and someone with high Diplomacy is very convincing. Someone with a Strength 10 and the Muscle of the Society trait is stronger than someone with Strength 11.


Pupsocket wrote:
Moro wrote:


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?

My position on the topic is this: "Character capabilities are character capabilities". Ability scores are not somehow way more meaningful than other numbers on the sheet. Someone with a good Acrobatics modifier is nimble, someone with high modifiers in several knowledge skills is well-educated, someone with high Perception and Sense Motive is very aware, and someone with high Diplomacy is very convincing. Someone with a Strength 10 and the Muscle of the Society trait is stronger than someone with Strength 11.

Fair enough. I was just curious. I suppose something can be said for innate talent vs. learned skill, but I don't really see the need to differentiate between the ways in which a character might have come to have the bonus number on their sheet.


My take:

Ability scores are a starting point that can then be modified by hard work and effort (usually ranks in skills).

To me, this is no different than the shy person learning to be a public speaker and projecting an air of calm control even though their natural impulse is to run.

Additionally, I feel an 8 Charisma is appropriate for most martial builds because people who are not very good at social interactions may resort to violence to explain themselves. You have but to look at the news to see this.

In an setting of violence, is it any wonder that the people who are least suited to speaking pick up a sword?

As for character builds, simply out of a sense of balance I do not tank more than one ability score and I almost never drop it below an 8 before racial modifiers.

In any case, I don't think an 8 is that big a penalty compared to the "average" of 10-11. Certainly not enough to warrant an immediate shift in NPC attitude.

- Gauss

Dark Archive

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of what you put in your stats or what you elect to play, consider how Diplomacy works when people are trying to "make friends". Let's take a peak:

Quote:
Check: 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.

The GM determines this starting attitude. So, in most cases, the NPC any PC is trying to influence is probably indifferent to their presence, regardless of whether they're an ugly cuss or a stuttering idiot (hey, you play your low Cha how you want). In fact, I think (and hope) most GMs would ask, especially in the case of really, really low stats (like a Cha of 6 or 7) how those frailties manifest. Are you slow to respond? Do you stutter? Do you have a hairlip?

Effectively, a player could play a character with an exceptionally low Cha and still be social, but that penalty (which is already incorporated into the game) should just be addressed... in game. When the socially awkward fighter, with his Cha of 7, walks up and tries to smooth talk a guard (who's probably starting at "unfriendly" to begin with), that -2 will manifest. The GM simply doesn't need to make further adjustments.

GMs, of course, could adopt a completely random approach to starting attitudes. They might simply roll a dice and determine it.

Or, they could determine the NPCs starting attitude based on their job or profession. Sales people, for instance, would generally start out as friendly (they want to sell you something, after all) whereas guards would be suspicious (it's their job, after all), putting them into an unfriendly category (and suggesting regular Sense Motive rolls). The tired commoner, on his way home from work, is probably tired and indifferent. He doesn't want to stop and chat - he wants to go see his wife and kids (and eat dinner)! The haughty noble is probably, to the average adventurers, going to be unfriendly and, to those coming unannounced, possibly even hostile (which doesn't mean he'll jump directly into combat, only that he'll regard you with absolutely no favor at all).

So, should a GM add additional penalties to characters with low scores?

Not at all. He shouldn't have to since the mechanics more than account for them. All he needs to do is adjust the starting attitude of any NPCs based on their person prejudices. Maybe, as soon as Chelexian warrior opens his mouth, the NPC notices his accent, rolls his eyes, and responds, "slaver" as he walks off. Or whatever.

Of course, how your GM deals with starting attitude is completely up to them. Generally speaking, I determine the NPCs starting attitude at the beginning of an encounter, then let folks act as they see fit. If the face steps up and works his magic, great. If the "dumb fighter" speaks up, I call for a diplomacy check from them, instead. Then, things proceed as normal. Most groups figure out who their face is pretty quick after that.

Alternately, a GM could simply ask the group who speaks for them, prompting the players to choose a face and respond in kind.

Finally, knowing how a particular city, country, or religion does business helps, too. So, don't forget to have PCs make the appropriate Knowledge skill checks before they plan out big, important social encounters. For instance, if they're going to announce themselves to a new duke in a strange land, Knowledge (nobility) or even Knowledge (local) skill checks might be in order. Once they learn the proper way to announce themselves (perhaps some dukes require a simple herald where some want elephants and marching bands), they can hope for (at least) a starting attitude of indifferent.

At the end of the day, I think the frustration GMs experience most (especially when it comes to this topic) is that they perceive particular players as trying to "game" the system by optimizing the mechanics to build characters with no major faults. While that can be frustrating (and goodness knows we've all had one of those players at our table), not every instance of an optimized character is because of this. Maybe someone really wants to have a cool Tengu Ninja Fire Walker who lost his eye in the battle of Darkskull Manor, leaving him horribly scarred and resented as one of the "Cursed." And maybe some folks are just being cheesy.

At the end of the day, ask yourself, "Is it even worth worrying about? Is it disrupting play? Is it annoying the other players? Does it spoil the atmosphere?" If the answer is yes to most (or any) of these questions, then you probably have one of those players and you can just address the issue directly. Congratulate them on finding all those cool loopholes and politely ask them to stop. And if you have a player who is genuinely exploring a concept, congratulate them and run with it!

Running games should never be a player vs. GM scenario.

Ever.

Role-playing games should always be a cooperative player-storyteller experience. That's part of what makes them fun. That's definitely what sets them apart from MMOs or console games.

At least that's my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

Cheers,
Jaye

Liberty's Edge

Weirdo wrote:


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 a prerequisite, not and effect.

You are really reaching to argue that the requirement of a full minute is a benefit of the skill rather than a restriction.

And again, it is no more "double jeopardy" than Dex being added to reflex saves and dexterity skill checks is double jeopardy.

Skills are on one line.

"Checks that represent attempts to influence others." on the next line.

Two separate things, listed separately.

Liberty's Edge

Jason Sonia wrote:

Regardless of what you put in your stats or what you elect to play, consider how Diplomacy works when people are trying to "make friends". Let's take a peak:

Quote:
Check: 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.
The GM determines this starting attitude. So, in most cases, the NPC any PC is trying to influence is probably indifferent to their presence, regardless of whether they're an ugly cuss or a stuttering idiot (hey, you play your low Cha how you want). In fact, I think (and hope) most GMs would ask, especially in the case of really, really low stats (like a Cha of 6 or 7) how those frailties manifest. Are you slow to respond? Do you stutter? Do you have a hairlip?

There is indifferent and there is unhelpful.

If I am walking down the street and a salesman approaches me, I am not indifferent. I am not hostile, but I am likely to be unhelpful.

I am not likely to stop to give them a full minute of my time. I am even less likely to do so if they are not charismatic, which will not require me a full minute of continuous interaction to realize.

And so, if I am unhelpful, they don't get to request, and there is not logical reason why I would give them a minute of my time.

However if the person is quite charismatic, I may.

I keep seeing "penality" over and over. What about the penalty for not actually giving people the benefits of the ability they put points in?

If I am an innkeep, I'm going to be indifferent because I'm in a service field.

If I am a random townsperson and a group of adventurers walks up to me to ask something of me, that is not very different than a saleman walking up to you on the street. If anything, it's more dangerous to you.

In most groups, there is someone who does the approaching. Someone charismatic. And if someone charismatic walks up to you on the street, particularly someone exceptionally charismatic, you will be more likely to give them "a minute of your time" than if someone uncharismatic walks up to you.

Regardless of if it is a stutter or a harelip. That person is not charismatic.

That person may be diplomatic, or intimidating, but you aren't interested in giving them enough time out of your day to find out, because they aren't very charismatic.

This is not to say that diplomacy doesn't have many, many uses. This is to say it is not a replacement for being charismatic.

Which is why it has so many limitations written into it.

Liberty's Edge

Pupsocket wrote:
Moro wrote:


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?

My position on the topic is this: "Character capabilities are character capabilities". Ability scores are not somehow way more meaningful than other numbers on the sheet. Someone with a good Acrobatics modifier is nimble, someone with high modifiers in several knowledge skills is well-educated, someone with high Perception and Sense Motive is very aware, and someone with high Diplomacy is very convincing. Someone with a Strength 10 and the Muscle of the Society trait is stronger than someone with Strength 11.

Who said less?

Someone with a good acrobatics modifier can balance, jump and tumble.

They don't have "Nimble fingers" as a result. It doesn't up their reflex save, which is presumably reflected by nimbly dodging things. It doesn't make you able to nimbly dodge attacks or throw things more accurately.

The skill does what it says it does, within the confines of what it does. The other things I listed, while being things a "nimble" person would be better at, aren't reflected by the acrobatics score. While it is a broad skill that applies to a lot of things that happen frequently, just like diplomacy is, it is not a substitute for dexterity outside of the list of things that you can do with acrobatics.

It doesn't cover every situation where "nimble" is the issue at hand, just as diplomacy doesn't work with regards to initial or even long term impressions.

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

It does not change your personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, or appearance.

Liberty's Edge

Durinor wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:

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.

I think if the NPC was indifferent or better the could use the 'make a request' function of diplomacy for this

And if they were helpful, you wouldn't need to.

And if wishes were fishes, we would all eat well.

Liberty's Edge

Pupsocket wrote:


1) Gygaxians like Ciretose.

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!


ciretose wrote:
Pupsocket wrote:


1) Gygaxians like Ciretose.

BUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

That was pretty much my reaction as well.


mdt wrote:
Montana77 wrote:

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. :)

I'd say there kind of is a rule like the one you're talking about: The Leadership feat is governed by level and Charisma.

Followers and Cohorts only care about level and Charisma score (the raw force of personality), no ammount of ranks in Diplomacy can attract more followers (there are conditional modifiers to leadership scores, but they're unrelated to this discussion).
It isn't expressly written, but the Leadership feat indicates that Charisma indeed is important concerning people's reactions.

The problem with Charisma is that it's such a useless stat (unless playing a Cha based class), easily bypassed in most cases by expending a few ranks.


redward wrote:
JAMRenaissance wrote:

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.

Dude... Game of Thrones is worth the price of HBO by itself... particularly for a gamer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Game_of_Thrones_characters#Main_charac ters

(He's the first listed)

Now, I don't agree with applying a circumstance penalty to your Charisma score in this situation. THAT is double jeopardy. What I'm saying is that the skill is only usable for specifically the scenario it is listed as being used for, and that the attribute is used for everything else. Therefore, until you put yourself in a position to use the skill, you're stuck with the attribute.

redward wrote:

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.

I don't see it as a problem circumstantially. However, I do have a problem with the thought of "Get a high Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff and you NEVER need Charisma". "NEVER" is the key word there.


Weirdo wrote:
MongoLikeCandy wrote:
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."

Well, I think it is highly circumstantial. There is a reason why I pick "Chatting up a guy/girl" as a specific example of the scenario where the base Charisma comes into play first - it's a scenario where it is realistic that you may get shut down before you start.

As a GM, in the scenario presented - IF I think there's a chance of an immediate shut down - I'd roll a private Charisma skill check and modify the guy/girl's reaction accordingly. The head of the rogue gang may not have thought you were worth her time, or the nobleman may have thought you were too beneath them to listen.

But, again... there has to be a set REASON why there is a possibility of being shut down, and, if you can get the person's attention in another way, the appropriate skill check should occur.

Dark Archive

ciretose wrote:
There is indifferent and there is unhelpful.

Agreed. I was giving one of many possible examples.

Quote:
If I am walking down the street and a salesman approaches me, I am not indifferent. I am not hostile, but I am likely to be unhelpful.

Which is fine, as well. Depends ultimately on how the GM runs the NPC.

Quote:
I am not likely to stop to give them a full minute of my time. I am even less likely to do so if they are not charismatic, which will not require me a full minute of continuous interaction to realize.

Again, agreed.

Quote:

And so, if I am unhelpful, they don't get to request, and there is not logical reason why I would give them a minute of my time.

However if the person is quite charismatic, I may.

Again, that's up to the GM. What you do isn't necessarily what I would do. So, ergo, the GM is the final arbitrator on the NPCs actions, reactions, prejudices, ect.

Quote:

However if the person is quite charismatic, I may.

Quote:
I keep seeing "penality" over and over. What about the penalty for not actually giving people the benefits of the ability they put points in?

That's why Diplomacy can be used untrained. And how, exactly, is the starting attitude of an NPC a penalty?

Quote:
If I am an innkeep, I'm going to be indifferent because I'm in a service field.

Or, friendly because you make good tips. There's no hard line here.

Quote:
If I am a random townsperson and a group of adventurers walks up to me to ask something of me, that is not very different than a saleman walking up to you on the street. If anything, it's more dangerous to you.

Again, that's the GMs call. Not every single NPC reacts the same way. I gave suggestions, not absolutes.

Quote:
In most groups, there is someone who does the approaching. Someone charismatic. And if someone charismatic walks up to you on the street, particularly someone exceptionally charismatic, you will be more likely to give them "a minute of your time" than if someone uncharismatic walks up to you.

I disagree. You may. I may not.

Quote:
Regardless of if it is a stutter or a harelip. That person is not charismatic.

The book disagrees with you.

Charisma (Cha)
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious.

So, all those (personality, magnetism, appearance, speech patterns, dress, ect) factor in. It's not just appearance, nor is it just one's ability to "sweet talk the princess."

Quote:
That person may be diplomatic, or intimidating, but you aren't interested in giving them enough time out of your day to find out, because they aren't very charismatic.

Agreed. But given the system needs a baseline to determine how social interactions begin, the rules for an NPCs starting attitude are ideal. I fail to see how this is a secondary penalty.

Quote:
This is not to say that diplomacy doesn't have many, many uses. This is to say it is not a replacement for being charismatic.

Never said it was. I was suggesting that, as the system stands, the people role-playing charismatic characters that also used Cha as a dump stat (Mr. Charming with a Cha 6) did not (and do not) need to be penalized, again. The rules already handle this situation.

Quote:
Which is why it has so many limitations written into it.

Again, agreed. My post wasn't intended to be inflammatory or combative; quite the opposite. I was responding to the initial post and the overall responses I saw developing (and, to some extent, the age old roll-play vs. role-play issue) that was being addressed. I wasn't suggesting Diplomacy replace Cha, only that the rules for social interactions already exist. If people do not interact with NPCs (or at least attempt to), they can't bring Diplomacy, Intimidation, Bluff, or any of the Cha-based skills to bear. And if you do interact, well, the GM is going to assign a starting attitude to the NPC, even if he doesn't use the chart.

Cheers,
Jaye


The time factor is something I would say needs elaboration upon with Charisma setting the immediate reaction level, a baseline if you will (with contextual modifiers like situation, behaviour and race) whereby you (if given time) can begin to use social skills.

Thus a low charisma may result in disadvantages which could be overcome with sufficient use of social skills and high charisma could be undermined by a pcs actions.

I think it would require a more in depth interaction system than currently exists with modifications to some feats (like a human's silver tongued).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord_Malkov wrote:

This sort of min-maxing occurs because there is very little benefit to these ability scores outside of class-dependencies. Charisma in particular is a bit of a wasted stat. You may have an 18 charisma versus my 10, but (A) 1 point in a cha-based class skill and I also have a +4 and (B) Skill DCs don't properly scale, so if you keep a skill maxed it will probably be overkill by level 15.

As a GM, however, there are a few very good ways to handle this.

Firstly, remember that Ability damage will demolish these characters faster than most.

Secondly... USE it. If a character has a super low charisma, people are going to immediately dislike them. They will, in turn, dislike whoever he is with. They might try to pay that character less than the rest of the group for a job, refuse to let him in to any decent establishment etc. Guards will be more likely to harass him.

For low Int... hit the wallet. Merchants are going to work this guy over and charge him extra for everything he buys. Bartenders are going to charge for 12 drinks when he has only had 2. Local officials, guards and powerful NPCs are going to immediately dismiss his advice or warnings because, lets face it, he is an idiot. And if the character complains, you can always fall back on the 2 skills that commerce depends on: appraise and diplomacy. So if he tanks charisma AND intelligence, he is going to have no defense. Every back alley crook will see a 6 int character, no matter how strong, as a walking target.

Here's what I want to know. If you house ruled that you can tank anything you want, but you don't get bonuses on any other stat for doing so, how many folks would actually tank anything for the sake of roleplay.

Just me but I've never been convinced a person tanking one stat is doing it for any other reason but to boost another. Roleplaying has nothing to do with it.

OH


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ornery Hobbit wrote:
Here's what I want to know. If you house ruled that you can tank anything you want, but you don't get bonuses on any other stat for doing so, how many folks would actually tank anything for the sake of roleplay.

MANY, MANY fewer, but slightly greater than zero.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ornery Hobbit wrote:

Here's what I want to know. If you house ruled that you can tank anything you want, but you don't get bonuses on any other stat for doing so, how many folks would actually tank anything for the sake of roleplay.

Just me but I've never been convinced a person tanking one stat is doing it for any other reason but to boost another. Roleplaying has nothing to do with it.

OH

Roleplay and mechanics aren't mutually exclusive; to presume that they are is the Stormwind Fallacy. Furthermore, they are reciprocal in that mechanical mastery can help reinforce good roleplay and good roleplay can help reinforce mechanical mastery. For example, a contrary-build fighter who focuses on mental stats and severely dumps physical stats can be seen not only as poor mechanical mastery but also poor roleplay; what person with very limited physical talent and no inclination to supplement it with hard work and training is going to take up Fighter as a class? Poor Int and Cha are not only mechanically beneficial to a physical-oriented class such as Fighter since they yield higher scores in relevant stats, but it's also a superior level of roleplaying in that a person with very limited natural inclination for magical classes decided not to pursue those interests and focused on the strengths he has rather than trying to leverage strengths he lacked. So your question, whether a person will tank a stat if doing so offers no mechanical benefit is ridiculous on the face of it. It's like asking, "If you had the option of paying me $10 now and getting $20 back next week, or just paying me the $10 now because I'm poor and need the money, which would you do?" It's a strawman fallacy because the two situations are subtly different in context and comparing two different things; the former being investment sense and the latter being sense of charity. It's a matter of apples vs oranges; they're both fruits, but still different fruits.

Regarding the idea that a GM needs to impose "extra" penalty beyond the low stats is also a fallacy; the low stats are already the penalty. There's no need for a shopkeeper to "try harder" to trick a low-Int character because their lower chance of success with appraise already covers that. Moreover, if they've put significant skill points into Appraise, they may even be better at it because hard work trumps natural talent; with sufficient hard work, you will give the shopkeeper a run for his money, because you focused on a particular skill. The Shopkeeper focused on different skills. An ace mathematician isn't necessarily highly knowledgeable about complex biology and an ace biologist isn't necessarily highly knowledgeable about high-end theoretical mathematics, but both would be considered "intelligent", just with a focus in their respective fields. But a janitor with 7 Int who just so happens to be highly interested in Math as a hobby can be nearly as smart in Math as the mathematician because of skill point allocation. He has fewer to spread around, but he can still put as many as he can into his "Knowledge(Mathematics)" and, while the Int penalty will lower the overall check, it still puts him not much farther behind the trained Mathematician who also had spare skill points to put into some other knowledge and maybe supplemental skills like Profession(Barista).


Kazaan wrote:


Regarding the idea that a GM needs to impose "extra" penalty beyond the low stats is also a fallacy; the low stats are already the penalty. There's no need for a shopkeeper to "try harder" to trick a low-Int character because their lower chance of success with appraise already covers that. Moreover, if they've put significant skill points into Appraise, they may even be better at it because hard work trumps natural talent; with sufficient hard work, you will give the shopkeeper a run for his money, because you focused on a particular skill. The Shopkeeper focused on different skills. An ace mathematician isn't necessarily highly knowledgeable about complex biology and an ace biologist isn't necessarily highly knowledgeable about high-end theoretical mathematics, but both would be considered "intelligent", just with a focus in their respective fields. But a janitor with 7 Int who just so happens to be highly interested in Math as a hobby can be nearly as smart in Math as the mathematician because of skill point allocation. He has fewer to spread around, but he can still put as many as he can into his "Knowledge(Mathematics)" and, while the Int penalty will lower the overall check, it still puts him not much farther behind the trained Mathematician who also had spare skill points to put into some other knowledge and maybe supplemental skills like Profession(Barista).

It's not a penalty for NPCs to react naturally to the appearance and mannerisms of a PC. As you said, roleplay and mechanics aren't mutually exclusive. Shouldn't attributes have some noticeable effect on a PCs appearance or mannerisms? If so, why is it not possible to have NPCs who discriminate against strong or weak characters? Charismatic or not? Graceful or not?

Do skill ranks truly define the character at its core? Does a low Cha character with a hairlip still have a hairlip if he's got 10 ranks in Diplomacy?


I just went through the CRB looking for references to Charisma. This is what I found:

  • Get access to something
  • Frequency of access to something
  • Determine bonus to something
  • Determine DC of something
  • Concentration check
  • Wild empathy check
  • Skill checks
  • Opposed checks

The specific examples I found were:
Get access to something
Bonus spells for CHA casters
Gnome bonus SLAs
Class Features (Bard, Cleric, Paladin, Sorcerer, Wizard, Arcane Archer, Pathfinder Chronicler, and Shadowdancer)
Leadership Feat
Frequency of access to something
Class Features (...)
Determine bonus to something
Mostly spells
Determine DC of something
Class Features (Channel Energy, Smite, Spells)
Concentration check
Spellcasting
Wild empathy check
Druids and Rangers, handled as Diplomacy skill check
Skill checks
Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, ...
Opposed checks
Spells [opposed mental control]
Feats [opposed mental control]

Ability Score wrote:
Each creature has six ability scores: Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These scores represent a creature’s most basic attributes. The higher the score, the more raw potential and talent your character possesses.
Charisma (Cha) wrote:

Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious. You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to:

• Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
• Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
• Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead foes.
Bards, paladins, and sorcerers gain a number of bonus spells based on their Charisma scores. The minimum Charisma score needed to cast a bard, paladin, or sorcerer spell is 10 + the spell’s level.

Lets check what Charisma does relative to these pullet points:

Get access to something -- not listed
Frequency of access to something -- not listed
Determine bonus to something -- not listed
Determine DC of something -- some listed
Concentration check -- not listed
Wild empathy check -- sort of listed
Skill checks -- listed
Opposed checks -- sort of listed

There are a number of things Charisma is used for that are not in the definition. Some are flat Charisma checks, some are not.

Also note that I did not see anything stating Charisma affected starting attitude. In fact the only stuff I found for initial attitude was under Alignment and the Wild Empathy class feature.

Alignment wrote:
Alignment represents a creature’s basic moral and ethical attitude.
Wild Empathy wrote:
The typical domestic animal has a starting attitude of indifferent, while wild animals are usually unfriendly.

I see no support in the CRB for CHA to affect initial attitude. Up-thread, several mentioned double jeopardy. I agree that the modifier should only apply once, and as it is in the skill check already, it should not also affect initial attitude. Just note that the initial attitude does not need to be indifferent. Back in 2e, it affected initial attitude but there wasn't much codified for skills so you avoided double jeopardy.

/cevah

Liberty's Edge

What double jeopardy?

It is two separate things, actually listed separately in the entry.

Is it double jeopardy that Strength effects Melee attacks and damage as well as Swim and Climb checks?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@cevah

Your argument is that there is no specific rule in the CRB that a shopkeeper will serve a 20 charisma elf in average clothes before a 1 Charisma dwarf in average clothes, so therefor any GM that let's the elf go first is blatently double penalizing the dwarf?

How about the elf being penalized? She is under your system, see, she has no chance to use her diplomacy, nor does the dwarf. So there's a coin flip every time, which means she has exactly the same chance of being served first under your system as the 1 cha dwarf.

Why should she bother with charisma then unless she's a sorcerer or bard or oracle? With your system, we should only ever people with charisma who are those three classes. No NPC should EVER have charisma as anything other than 8, because it's useless to them. It's always better to have int over charisma, you can put points into skills to overcome the low charisma. Nobody ever notices you have low charisma under your system, because the entire world has blinders on and aren't allowed to notice that you have the personal magnetism of a slime mold.

I don't think your system is very believable, and I doubt I could play in a game that worked like that. NPCs should be believable, and in the real world, people who are timid wallflowers (low self esteem, low charisma) are quite often overlooked, usually repeatedly, while other more confident more attractive people are served before them. That's more realistic. And people don't spend a minute convincing the sales person to help them instead of the other person.


Kazaan wrote:
Ornery Hobbit wrote:

Here's what I want to know. If you house ruled that you can tank anything you want, but you don't get bonuses on any other stat for doing so, how many folks would actually tank anything for the sake of roleplay.

Just me but I've never been convinced a person tanking one stat is doing it for any other reason but to boost another. Roleplaying has nothing to do with it.

OH

Roleplay and mechanics aren't mutually exclusive; to presume that they are is the Stormwind Fallacy. Furthermore, they are reciprocal in that mechanical mastery can help reinforce good roleplay and good roleplay can help reinforce mechanical mastery. For example, a contrary-build fighter who focuses on mental stats and severely dumps physical stats can be seen not only as poor mechanical mastery but also poor roleplay; what person with very limited physical talent and no inclination to supplement it with hard work and training is going to take up Fighter as a class? Poor Int and Cha are not only mechanically beneficial to a physical-oriented class such as Fighter since they yield higher scores in relevant stats, but it's also a superior level of roleplaying in that a person with very limited natural inclination for magical classes decided not to pursue those interests and focused on the strengths he has rather than trying to leverage strengths he lacked. So your question, whether a person will tank a stat if doing so offers no mechanical benefit is ridiculous on the face of it. It's like asking, "If you had the option of paying me $10 now and getting $20 back next week, or just paying me the $10 now because I'm poor and need the money, which would you do?" It's a strawman fallacy because the two situations are subtly different in context and comparing two different things; the former being investment sense and the latter being sense of charity. It's a matter of apples vs oranges; they're both fruits, but still different fruits.

Regarding the idea that a GM needs to impose...

So all fighters must be dumb? or socially clueless? or completely uneducated? Sorry man, not buying it. This sounds a lot like someone trying to justify a power build to me. Granted, I do not know you and have never sat at the same table with you nor even looked over one of your characters, so that last statement in regards to you *personally* should not be taken in that sense. Just that I've heard a ton of similar arguments from folks that can't understand why starting out at 1st level with a 20 STR and little else an the exception bordering on impossible and not the rule.

You want your 18+2 Human fighter with totally inadequate mental skills at 1st level? Ok, what percentage of the population of the world's 16 year olds are so gifted? One percent? Less than one percent? Roll percentile.

People by their very nature are more multi-faceted than that, 1st level types that can one punch a camel are Schwarzenegger Fallacies.

Just by 2 cents, :)

OH


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

What double jeopardy?

It is two separate things, actually listed separately in the entry.

Is it double jeopardy that Strength effects Melee attacks and damage as well as Swim and Climb checks?

It is double jeopardy to apply an effect twice for the same thing. If it is two different things, then it is not double jeopardy.

mdt wrote:

@cevah

Your argument is that there is no specific rule in the CRB that a shopkeeper will serve a 20 charisma elf in average clothes before a 1 Charisma dwarf in average clothes, so therefor any GM that let's the elf go first is blatently double penalizing the dwarf?

I make no argument. I state a lack of mechanics. Such a lack puts it into GM call territory, or, as some might say, house rules.

If a shopkeeper had this happen, he would have to decide which to serve first. I can easily see this as a CHA check between customers for who gets the shopkeeper's attention. I can also easily see this as a DEX check for initiative to see who spoke first. Again, GM call, not covered by the rules.

mdt wrote:
How about the elf being penalized? She is under your system, see, she has no chance to use her diplomacy, nor does the dwarf. So there's a coin flip every time, which means she has exactly the same chance of being served first under your system as the 1 cha dwarf.

Not covered, so see above.

mdt wrote:

Why should she bother with charisma then unless she's a sorcerer or bard or oracle? With your system, we should only ever people with charisma who are those three classes. No NPC should EVER have charisma as anything other than 8, because it's useless to them. It's always better to have int over charisma, you can put points into skills to overcome the low charisma. Nobody ever notices you have low charisma under your system, because the entire world has blinders on and aren't allowed to notice that you have the personal magnetism of a slime mold.

I don't think your system is very believable, and I doubt I could play in a game that worked like that. NPCs should be believable, and in the real world, people who are timid wallflowers (low self esteem, low charisma) are quite often overlooked, usually repeatedly, while other more confident more attractive people are served before them. That's more realistic. And people don't spend a minute convincing the sales person to help them instead of the other person.

The system you are bemoaning is the RAW, not mine. I stated what RAW I found, followed by a very short note about not wanting to use a modifier twice, a.k.a. double jeopardy.

As to why get a good CHA modifier, it helps in many places, not just casters. Most NPCs have few levels, and so few points. The attribute modifiers therefor dominate the skills over the ranks. People do notice because when you interact with them your modifier applies.

The reason wallflower people are ignored is because they don't try to get your attention effectively. IMO this is not in the rules because they chose to let the lack be reflected with the skill check for interaction.

As to salesmen, people are more likely spending a minute getting a salesmen out of their face. For the salesman to succeed, they need to make money. Money has a high CHA mod. :-)

If you go shopping on Black Friday, you will find plenty of people spending several minutes trying to get salesmen to pay attention to them. Day after Christmas it will be the return clerk instead.

/cevah

Liberty's Edge

1. It isn't the same thing.
2. Even if it were, that is like saying it unfair to apply strength to both attack and damage.


I wonder how much of the difference in viewpoint is in playing APs (where an NPC's initial attitude is fixed) and playing your own sessions (where the GM has to determine initial attitude)...

Liberty's Edge

JAMRenaissance wrote:
I wonder how much of the difference in viewpoint is in playing APs (where an NPC's initial attitude is fixed) and playing your own sessions (where the GM has to determine initial attitude)...

NPC initial attitude is fixed for many plot specific NPCs, generally ones you are intended to use skill checks on.

Which is why there are so many listings for diplomacy checks.

But it isn't like when you read an AP it tells you each and every initial attitude for every NPC in the game.


ciretose wrote:

1. It isn't the same thing.

2. Even if it were, that is like saying it unfair to apply strength to both attack and damage.

I reiterate:

"It is double jeopardy to apply an effect twice for the same thing. If it is two different things, then it is not double jeopardy."

Point 1 means use the two different things view.

Point 2 is two different things. For example:
Thrown weapons add STR to damage but not attack
Finessable weapons can use either STR or DEX for the attack but STR for damage.
Some weapons do not apply STR to damage.
Clearly, attack and damage are two different things.

/cevah

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:
ciretose wrote:

1. It isn't the same thing.

2. Even if it were, that is like saying it unfair to apply strength to both attack and damage.

I reiterate:

"It is double jeopardy to apply an effect twice for the same thing. If it is two different things, then it is not double jeopardy."

Point 1 means use the two different things view.

Point 2 is two different things. For example:
Thrown weapons add STR to damage but not attack
Finessable weapons can use either STR or DEX for the attack but STR for damage.
Some weapons do not apply STR to damage.
Clearly, attack and damage are two different things.

/cevah

When you put strength in both attack and damage, you are effecting the same thing twice.

When you use dex for both AC and Reflex save against a touch attack spell, you are effecting the same outcome twice.

When you use Con both for your Fort save and to determine how many hit points you lose when you take the damage from the spell, you are effecting the same outcome twice.

I could go on...

It isn't listed with skills.

It is listed directly under the list of skills, as a separate entry.

It. Is. A. Separate. Thing.


ciretose wrote:
Cevah wrote:
ciretose wrote:

1. It isn't the same thing.

2. Even if it were, that is like saying it unfair to apply strength to both attack and damage.

I reiterate:

"It is double jeopardy to apply an effect twice for the same thing. If it is two different things, then it is not double jeopardy."

Point 1 means use the two different things view.

Point 2 is two different things. For example:
Thrown weapons add STR to damage but not attack
Finessable weapons can use either STR or DEX for the attack but STR for damage.
Some weapons do not apply STR to damage.
Clearly, attack and damage are two different things.

/cevah

When you put strength in both attack and damage, you are effecting the same thing twice.

When you use dex for both AC and Reflex save against a touch attack spell, you are effecting the same outcome twice.

When you use Con both for your Fort save and to determine how many hit points you lose when you take the damage from the spell, you are effecting the same outcome twice.

I could go on...

It isn't listed with skills.

It is listed directly under the list of skills, as a separate entry.

It. Is. A. Separate. Thing.

You have lost me.

I just showed attack and damage are two different things. You say they are the same? I don't see that by RAW. I do see attack and damage as both being a simulation. Attacks can get through because of a powerful stroke (STR) or by a precise stroke (DEX). Damage is based on a variable amount with a bonus for a strong thrust or throw (STR), but only on items that you can effectively apply strength to. Since you can attack with STR without STR damage, and attack without STR yet STR damage, I see no way they could possibly be considered the same.

Reflex saves are effectively a spell AC, so it makes sense to apply it to another kind of AC. It is not double counted because [most] spells use either a hit mechanic or a save mechanic. Of course, there are some exceptions, yet that does not invalidate the rule of using a single mechanic.

For the CON one, I can sort of see your point, but it goes back at least to second edition. Sufficiently high con got better HP and also better saves at least that long. I don't think it will change anytime soon.

I don't follow what "it" is for the rest of your post.

/cevah

Liberty's Edge

You didn't actually. But since you see my point I'll go on for at least one, I'll go on.

If I tumble past someone, I use my dex for acrobatics and for AC if I fail.

I walk across a narrow ledge it is acrobatics and then a reflex if I fall to see if I grab the ledge.

Etc...etc...

There is no double jeopardy. It is two separate things.

Nothing in Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc...has anything to do with setting initial attitude, so it is no more double jeopardy than that reflex save on a failed acrobatics check.

It is two separate things.


ciretose wrote:
You didn't actually.

I didn't what? I have no clue what you are referring to here.

ciretose wrote:

Nothing in Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc...has anything to do with setting initial attitude, so it is no more double jeopardy than that reflex save on a failed acrobatics check.

It is two separate things.

In my first post today (this page), I stated I found little RAW support on initial attitude. What RAW I found stated alignment affects it, and that animals have defaults. I don't see how you are getting me saying something is double jeopardy when I didn't write it. It would help me, and perhaps others, if you quote what you are referring to. Otherwise, I have to RAI what you write, and might get it wrong or get lost.

/cevah


I disagree Cevah,
The book has 'charisma checks' listed as a valid use of Charisma, and affecting NPCs as Ciretose has pointed out on about a billion posts so far. RAW that has meaning. You interpret it to mean nothing. I'm of the opinion that if it's written in the CRB, it likely has meaning, especially when it's not in a 'fluff' section (fluff sections would be descriptions of classes or races, for example). To me, that whole section is crunch. That you ignore it to me says you are houseruling it so you can dump with minimal downside.

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:

In my first post today (this page), I stated I found little RAW support on initial attitude. What RAW I found stated alignment affects it, and that animals have defaults. I don't see how you are getting me saying something is double jeopardy when I didn't write it. It would help me, and perhaps others, if you quote what you are referring to. Otherwise, I have to RAI what you write, and might get it wrong or get lost.

/cevah

Under Charisma, it says:

"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."

Does it not?


MongoLikeCandy wrote:

It's not a penalty for NPCs to react naturally to the appearance and mannerisms of a PC. As you said, roleplay and mechanics aren't mutually exclusive. Shouldn't attributes have some noticeable effect on a PCs appearance or mannerisms? If so, why is it not possible to have NPCs who discriminate against strong or weak characters? Charismatic or not? Graceful or not?

Do skill ranks truly define the character at its core? Does a low Cha character with a hairlip still have a hairlip if he's got 10 ranks in Diplomacy?

Charisma is a mental stat; it doesn't reflect appearance in regards to physical deformity but rather how you prominently you carry yourself. Plenty of hideous demons and abominations and undead have sky-high Charisma but have a lot worse than "a hairlip" going for them. Charisma doesn't deal with the quality of your appearance but rather the quantity; whether you're pretty or ugly is quality of your appearance and this is not measured by Charisma. A con-man with sufficient Wisdom may be able to Sense Motive and tell that a person is an easy mark or not, but he's not going to entirely discount the physical capabilities of his mark unless the benefit significantly outweighs the risks. You can't tell how smart someone is merely by looking at them and even if you figure that they're not the brightest crayon in the box, you can't really tell if they've pumped some knowledge or other skill as high as they can to compensate so your "easy mark" may turn out to be hustling you. Lastly, there's no mechanical process given in the rules as to exactly how Charisma would set starting impression of you so even if it's intended to, it doesn't demonstrate what you do to determine it. Ok, high Cha makes you more confident and someone will think more highly of you... but how much more likely? What Cha modifier do you require for them to start at Hostile, Unfriendly, Indifferent, Friendly, or Helpful? Is it really realistic to have a force of personality so poor that people will attack you on sight? If that's so, how does it explain the aforementioned hags, demons, aberrations, and undead that have high Cha. Do people start automatically friendly or helpful to a 27 Cha Balor? simply because their Force of Personality is so high?

Ornery Hobbit wrote:

So all fighters must be dumb? or socially clueless? or completely uneducated? Sorry man, not buying it. This sounds a lot like someone trying to justify a power build to me. Granted, I do not know you and have never sat at the same table with you nor even looked over one of your characters, so that last statement in regards to you *personally* should not be taken in that sense. Just that I've heard a ton of similar arguments from folks that can't understand why starting out at 1st level with a 20 STR and little else an the exception bordering on impossible and not the rule.

You want your 18+2 Human fighter with totally inadequate mental skills at 1st level? Ok, what percentage of the population of the world's 16 year olds are so gifted? One percent? Less than one percent? Roll percentile.

People by their very nature are more multi-faceted than that, 1st level types that can one punch a camel are Schwarzenegger Fallacies.

Just by 2 cents, :)

OH

You seem to have let the fundamental point of what I wrote fly completely over your head. You don't need to make a reflex save against this kind of thing, you know. I didn't say that all fighters must be dumb. I said that a dumb person's options are severely limited and, given the manner in which the point buy system functions, a person lacking in both Int and Cha is, inherently, going to have a surplus of mostly physical stats (and possibly wisdom). Even if you roll for stats and end up with a low Int, low Cha, high Str and Con character and need to pick a class that they decided to aim for, you're likely not going to pick Wizard or Bard... You could, no one is saying that you can't, it's just not a very good idea. A slow person isn't prohibited from running... but it'd be pretty foolish to think he can compete with Olympic runners who have significant physical training and probably even natural talent to build upon. By contrast, a character with more balanced stats is going to have significantly more options open, though they're not quite as naturally talented as the one focused in a few stats. The difference between 18 Str and 20 Str is going to wash out after not too long.

What are the chances of an 18+2 Str Fighter? About 0.077%. Applied to fantasy world population of roughly 1 billion, we'd expect about 777,605 such individuals. What does that have anything to do with anything? Bupkis. Some of those nearly 8 hundred thousand characters with 20 starting Str are going to have high stats in other places. They may go into professions such as Magus or Cleric or Paladin depending on how their mental stats fare. But Fighters are going to make up a significant portion of those 8 hundred thousand characters and a significant number of those Fighters are also going to have less than average Intelligence and Charisma. Moreover, a good number of these characters didn't survive long enough because they thought "Swordchucks" was a good weapon to focus their training in, probably due to lack of Wisdom and possibly Dexterity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mdt wrote:

I disagree Cevah,

The book has 'charisma checks' listed as a valid use of Charisma, and affecting NPCs as Ciretose has pointed out on about a billion posts so far. RAW that has meaning. You interpret it to mean nothing. I'm of the opinion that if it's written in the CRB, it likely has meaning, especially when it's not in a 'fluff' section (fluff sections would be descriptions of classes or races, for example). To me, that whole section is crunch. That you ignore it to me says you are houseruling it so you can dump with minimal downside.

I agree that there are such checks, and that they can affect NPCs. I recall a number in spells that charm/dominate.

I don't interpret it as nothing. Can you quote me saying that, as I don't see it when I review my posts today.

What am I ignoring? Did I omit something in the CRB? I thought I got them all. While I grouped my notes from the CRB, I thought I expressed how they worked. Please cite.

/cevah


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cevah wrote:


I agree that there are such checks, and that they can affect NPCs. I recall a number in spells that charm/dominate.

I don't interpret it as nothing. Can you quote me saying that, as I don't see it when I review my posts today.

What am I ignoring? Did I omit something in the CRB? I thought I got them all. While I grouped my notes from the CRB, I thought I expressed how they worked. Please cite.

/cevah

Any checks required in a spell are just that, checks required by the spell, not generic Charisma checks. You are ignoring the line under Charisma about checks to influence people. That line does not refer to spells. If it did, it would say 'with spells'. It doesn't refer to Skills, those are specified above it.

The only other interpretation is checks that don't fall into any other category, such as 'who do I give service to first' or 'which girl at the bar do I offer to buy a drink for', and things like that. In other words, if it's not covered under something else, it's a straight charisma check.

That's sort of the point of raw stat checks, they are for situations not covered by specifics. You want to negate that for stats, which is counter to RAW.

What you are ignoring, or rather, discounting, is the very line that's been quoted multiple times. You are classifying that as 'spell checks' and that's it. It's not. Checks in spells are specifics. The entry for Charisma is a general rule. Specific trumps general, and spells have specifics in how they work. A spell could say it requires a Con check, in which case, it's not a fort save, but a con check. That would be perfectly valid and 100% RAW, but it would not negate fortitude saves for other spells. Nor would it negate fortitude saves for fatigue and exhaustion.

Your interpretation of spell checks negates any other use of Charisma checks by relegating the charisma check to influence entry to only meaning spells.


ciretose wrote:
Cevah wrote:
ciretose wrote:
You didn't actually.

I didn't what? I have no clue what you are referring to here.

ciretose wrote:

Nothing in Diplomacy, Intimidate, etc...has anything to do with setting initial attitude, so it is no more double jeopardy than that reflex save on a failed acrobatics check.

It is two separate things.

In my first post today (this page), I stated I found little RAW support on initial attitude. What RAW I found stated alignment affects it, and that animals have defaults. I don't see how you are getting me saying something is double jeopardy when I didn't write it. It would help me, and perhaps others, if you quote what you are referring to. Otherwise, I have to RAI what you write, and might get it wrong or get lost.

/cevah

Under Charisma, it says:

"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."

Does it not?

Added the full text of my last post in.

Still not seeing your point. If you are reffing to "I didn't what?", your response makes no sense. If you are referring to the latter text, as I assume, it still makes no sense as I am referring to initial attitude and you are referring to changing attitude.

Liberty's Edge

In your research, what is listed as influencing what initial attitude (Not changing it after it is set, deciding what it is) is the core rule book.

And if the answer is "Nothing" what is listed as being used for influencing others?

Hmm...


ciretose wrote:

In your research, what is listed as influencing initial attitude in the core rule book.

And if the answer is "Nothing" what is listed as being used for influencing others?

Hmm...

The answer is almost nothing. However, you do not use Charisma until after you meet.

/cevah

EDIT: I see you edited you post after I hit reply. No need to change my reply. :-)


mdt wrote:
Cevah wrote:


I agree that there are such checks, and that they can affect NPCs. I recall a number in spells that charm/dominate.

I don't interpret it as nothing. Can you quote me saying that, as I don't see it when I review my posts today.

What am I ignoring? Did I omit something in the CRB? I thought I got them all. While I grouped my notes from the CRB, I thought I expressed how they worked. Please cite.

/cevah

Any checks required in a spell are just that, checks required by the spell, not generic Charisma checks. You are ignoring the line under Charisma about checks to influence people. That line does not refer to spells. If it did, it would say 'with spells'. It doesn't refer to Skills, those are specified above it.

Ah, I see what you are saying. I think you missed what I began with: "I just went through the CRB looking for references to Charisma. This is what I found:". I found charisma checks called out in spells, feats, and a few other places. [Not just spells.] You are reading "what I found" as me saying that is the only time they are used. Not my intent at all.

mdt wrote:
The only other interpretation is checks that don't fall into any other category, such as 'who do I give service to first' or 'which girl at the bar do I offer to buy a drink for', and things like that. In other words, if it's not covered under something else, it's a straight charisma check.

No. It is a GM call. The GM will likely call for a CHA check, but could call for a DEX (initiative) check instead. Heck, if several are pushing for position at the counter, it could even be a STR check.

mdt wrote:
That's sort of the point of raw stat checks, they are for situations not covered by specifics. You want to negate that for stats, which is counter to RAW.

I did not say this.

mdt wrote:

What you are ignoring, or rather, discounting, is the very line that's been quoted multiple times. You are classifying that as 'spell checks' and that's it. It's not. Checks in spells are specifics. The entry for Charisma is a general rule. Specific trumps general, and spells have specifics in how they work. A spell could say it requires a Con check, in which case, it's not a fort save, but a con check. That would be perfectly valid and 100% RAW, but it would not negate fortitude saves for other spells. Nor would it negate fortitude saves for fatigue and exhaustion.

Your interpretation of spell checks negates any other use of Charisma checks by relegating the charisma check to influence entry to only meaning spells.

Again, you are reading into what I wrote things I didn't write. That is why I started with "What I Found". At no point did I say play it one way or another until at the end I made a comment about double jeopardy. I think we are pretty close in views, but sometimes we fail to understand what the other wrote.

/cevah

Dark Archive

Let me check...

Yup, I once played a half-giant with an intelligence and charisma of 7. He had a wisdom of 12 though because psychic warrior.

I usually don't do that, as I prefer to keep my stats at least average. This was a one-shot, so I made a character that could one-shot every encounter. The GM had a good laugh when he used murderous command on my character.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:

In your research, what is listed as influencing what initial attitude (Not changing it after it is set, deciding what it is) is the core rule book.

And if the answer is "Nothing" what is listed as being used for influencing others?

Hmm...

What in the CRB connects "initial attitude" to "influencing others"?

Is it nothing?

I think it's nothing.

In fact, the only places I can find how to set a "Starting Attitude" are in Ultimate Combat for Performance combat, and this, from Ultimate Campaign:

Quote:
Attitude: Much like the starting attitude of an NPC, the target kingdom's initial attitude toward you is indifferent, though the GM may modify this based on alignment differences, your shared history, culture, warfare, espionage, racial tensions, and other factors in the campaign world. These factors may also influence the Diplomacy DC for using this edict (generally increasing the DC by 5 for every attitude step worse than helpful).

Do you see any glaring omissions there?

Influencing others is an action. It's something you do. Starting attitude is something you are. It's a state. A state, that, according to the above, starts at indifferent, modified by a plethora of circumstances that do not include a Charisma modifier.


Cevah wrote:


mdt wrote:
The only other interpretation is checks that don't fall into any other category, such as 'who do I give service to first' or 'which girl at the bar do I offer to buy a drink for', and things like that. In other words, if it's not covered under something else, it's a straight charisma check.

No. It is a GM call. The GM will likely call for a CHA check, but could call for a DEX (initiative) check instead. Heck, if several are pushing for position at the counter, it could even be a STR check.

How is 'which girl do I offer a drink to' a Dex (initiative) check? Am I the center of the universe and every female that see's me leaps off their stools and throws themselves at my feet and the one who grabs and kisses my toe first is the one I buy the drink for? :)

And no, you might get a bonus if you make a dex check to be noticed first, but it's the shopkeeper that determines who he deals with first, not who leaps up first. He may decide that the Charisma 8 person cut in front of the Charisma 18 person and tell them to go to the end of the line (I've actually seen this at college before, back in the day).

Besides which, you coming up with convoluted corner cases doesn't negate the statement that charisma can be used in the way RAW says it can be. That's the problem I'm having with your argument, you are dismissing everyone else's position, and the written text, by saying you can work around them by changing the checks. Again, we're back to you wanting to minimize the drawbacks of a dump stat.

Would you defend the dex check so hard if you were playing a heavily armored, 7 dex character with a 12 charisma?

Cevah wrote:


mdt wrote:
That's sort of the point of raw stat checks, they are for situations not covered by specifics. You want to negate that for stats, which is counter to RAW.

I did not say this.

Sure you did, you said 'let's not use charisma checks, use initiative instead', or 'use strength instead'. In other words, let's further minimize charisma so we can ignore the downsides of dumping that stat even more than we already do.

mdt wrote:
Again, you are reading into what I wrote things I didn't write. That is why I started with "What I Found". At no point did I say play it one way or another until at the end I made a comment about double jeopardy. I think we are pretty close in views, but sometimes we fail to understand what the other wrote.

Possibly, but so far all I read from you are 'charisma checks/use is not RAW and shouldn't be used'. Which reads like someone just arguing to be argumentative, or someone who wants to minimize any downsides to dumping a dump stat.

Liberty's Edge

Cevah wrote:


The answer is almost nothing. However, you do not use Charisma until after you meet.

Define "meet". Because obviously appearance at minimum comes into play before you formally "meet" and I would argue personal magnetism and some aspects of personality reflect prior to formally meeting as well.


mdt wrote:
Cevah wrote:


mdt wrote:
The only other interpretation is checks that don't fall into any other category, such as 'who do I give service to first' or 'which girl at the bar do I offer to buy a drink for', and things like that. In other words, if it's not covered under something else, it's a straight charisma check.

No. It is a GM call. The GM will likely call for a CHA check, but could call for a DEX (initiative) check instead. Heck, if several are pushing for position at the counter, it could even be a STR check.

How is 'which girl do I offer a drink to' a Dex (initiative) check? Am I the center of the universe and every female that see's me leaps off their stools and throws themselves at my feet and the one who grabs and kisses my toe first is the one I buy the drink for? :)

And no, you might get a bonus if you make a dex check to be noticed first, but it's the shopkeeper that determines who he deals with first, not who leaps up first. He may decide that the Charisma 8 person cut in front of the Charisma 18 person and tell them to go to the end of the line (I've actually seen this at college before, back in the day).

Besides which, you coming up with convoluted corner cases doesn't negate the statement that charisma can be used in the way RAW says it can be. That's the problem I'm having with your argument, you are dismissing everyone else's position, and the written text, by saying you can work around them by changing the checks. Again, we're back to you wanting to minimize the drawbacks of a dump stat.

Would you defend the dex check so hard if you were playing a heavily armored, 7 dex character with a 12 charisma?

Cevah wrote:


mdt wrote:
That's sort of the point of raw stat checks, they are for situations not covered by specifics. You want to negate that for stats, which is counter to RAW.

I did not say this.

Sure you did, you said 'let's not use charisma checks, use initiative instead', or 'use strength...

You are reading "but could call" as "must instead use". I said "The GM will likely call for a CHA check". I then gave some corner cases where a GM would not do so. All backing my statement that it was a GM call, and not every single time a CHA check. Giving a GM an option is not the same as advocating that option only. Please read what I actually am saying.

Corner case example for above:
If a barkeep is very busy, they are not even looking at the person, but only the money. Whoever gets there first gets served first. The barkeep has no time to choose, and thus the choice is no longer his but between his customers. Do they all say beauty first or do they all say me first? Watch any short order cook when the lunch crowd hits. They are not serving in charisma order but initiative order. When they are not swamped, then they can take the time to see who they want to serve first.

As to telling the low CHA to go back to the end, I am fine with that if they actually cut in. I am not if they were legitimately there.

At no point did I say you cannot use CHA per RAW. I posted what I found in RAW, and later some examples showing what can happen. I have not been advocating to play this way or that at all. You are persisting in reading a position on RAW that I did not write.

I did not say I wanted to minimize a drawback. I gave examples where such a drawback might not apply. Yeah, often corner cases, but they show that one size does not fit all. Must every negotiation be a Diplomacy check? No. It could be Intimidate, Linguistics (forgery), or other methods. CHA checks may be the most common way to handle social interaction, but they are not the only way.

I might be jumping in to be argumentative. It has been known to happen. I don't think so, this time. My initial post today was "what I found". Later posts were either examples, often corner cases, to show the need for GM intervention. I did not say how to intervene.

All players want to minimize downsides, be they in a stat or skill or class feature. That is why they invest skill points, spells, magic, and experience to improve the character. Do I think a GM should ignore my low stats? No. Do I think I can find ways to do things so that success is measured in a way that does not use a poor stat? Sure. Will the GM let me? Maybe. You don't have to let others force you to play chess if you can figure out how to get them to play poker. The measurement of success is different because they are played differently. If I am better at one game then it is in my interests to make the game played be the one I am good at. That is what I mean by finding a different measure for success. Will the AP/module accept that different measure? In don't know. Can I try? Sure. Will I succeed? Again, maybe.

/cevah

Shadow Lodge

mdt wrote:

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.

No, I'm saying that the diplomacy check includes convincing an NPC who might take an interest that they should take an interest. I'm disagreeing with ciretose's elevator pitch argument - that you make a cha check as a standard action to convince an NPC to let you give your full minute-long spiel (diplomacy check).

That is not the same thing as convincing someone who is actively trying to harm you, or who is in the middle of an urgent task like running from a T-rex or even trying to serve a crowd of customers as quickly as possible, to stop and listen.

MongoLikeCandy wrote:

Well, I could see situations where it would make sense. Not that it necessarily makes it desirable.

What if the magician asks for a volunteer from the crowd and you really want it to be you? Unfortunately, everyone else in the crowd raises their hand too. Obviously, the magician isn't going to pick the person who raised their hand most politely, forcefully, or sincerely. He's just likely to pick someone who is most attractive (not necessarily physically) to him. How does the Rockstar Bard choose which groupies to have the roadies bring backstage? Diplomacy?

That's another situation in which nobody is getting to make a Diplomacy check so the cha check is fair. It's not a situation in which the magician or rockstar is picking the most attractive people to make a one-minute attempt to impress them, they're just making a snap judgement. I have agreed that this is an appropriate use for a Cha check from my first post.

The problem I'm having is one in which a PC walks up to an NPC and says “I need to talk to you about X,” and whether the NPC is willing to talk to the PC for a minute is dependent on the PC's raw cha score.

ciretose wrote:
You are really reaching to argue that the requirement of a full minute is a benefit of the skill rather than a restriction.

No, I'm arguing that the requirement of a full minute is a restriction against using diplomacy on someone who is in combat or involved in urgen business as described above, rather than a restriction preventing diplomacy from being used in normal social situations. Otherwise it would never be possible to use diplomacy to improve the attitude of a hostile person, because a hostile person would never listen to you for a minute.

ciretose wrote:
And again, it is no more "double jeopardy" than Dex being added to reflex saves and dexterity skill checks is double jeopardy.

Again, those are two separate tasks used in two separate situations. Selling someone on the street something is one task made up of two parts (get attention + make sale) like hitting someone in combat is one task made up of two parts (make contact + bypass armour).

ciretose wrote:
2. Even if it were, that is like saying it unfair to apply strength to both attack and damage.

I addressed this in a previous post. Two reasons why that system isn't unfair while the cha check elevator pitch is: (1) Weapon Finesse, ranged attacks, and magic all bypass the requirement for a str-based roll before doing damage, so strength isn't necessary to achieve the goal of doing damage. (2) Your attack bonus is also class- and level-based such that a low-str character can still have a decent chance of hitting in combat. A gunslinger with 6 Str is still better with a dagger than a wizard with 6 Str, and a high-level gunslinger is even more likely to hit with a dagger than a low-level Str 16 fighter.

Having to make a melee attack roll (usually str-based) before making a melee damage roll (usually modified by str) is much, much less punitive than “You must have Cha this high to pass go. This cannot be modified by level or any other character build choices.”

ciretose wrote:

When you use dex for both AC and Reflex save against a touch attack spell, you are effecting the same outcome twice....

When you use Con both for your Fort save and to determine how many hit points you lose when you take the damage from the spell, you are effecting the same outcome twice....
If I tumble past someone, I use my dex for acrobatics and for AC if I fail....
I walk across a narrow ledge it is acrobatics and then a reflex if I fall to see if I grab the ledge....

All of these are giving you two chances to avoid a negative outcome, which is different from requiring two successes in order to achieve a task. And all of these stats scale by level either automatically or with skill/feat/magic investment, whereas a straight ability check scales very poorly by level.

ciretose wrote:

Skills are on one line.

"Checks that represent attempts to influence others." on the next line.
Two separate things, listed separately.

And “checks to influence others” outside of skill checks can be found in charm person, summoning magic, and wild empathy. Or cha checks could be used in situations in which diplomacy is actually inappropriate or impossible as discussed above. There is no need to turn this line into more than it is.

ciretose wrote:

NPC initial attitude is fixed for many plot specific NPCs, generally ones you are intended to use skill checks on.

Which is why there are so many listings for diplomacy checks.

And you don't think this is indicative of the fact that the devs intend NPC starting attitudes in general, especially those you use skill checks on, to be independent of PC charisma?

mdt wrote:
You are ignoring the line under Charisma about checks to influence people. That line does not refer to spells. If it did, it would say 'with spells'. It doesn't refer to Skills, those are specified above it.

So because when it talks about Initimidate checks it doesn't say “Intimidate checks to demoralize people” it doesn't refer to checks to demoralize people? I don't need to / get to apply my Cha modifier to a check to demoralize?

The intimidate skill includes demoralizing AS WELL AS influencing attitude. Likewise, "Checks to influence others" does refer to checks involved in spells, AS WELL AS wild empathy (a check to influence others that is not with a spell). It also factors into the Loyalty check a ruler makes to influence their kingdom, if using kingdom building. And you can make a charisma check to break someone else's Enthrall spell (note that the person making the charisma check isn't the one trying to use a spell to influence others).

And yes, "checks to influence others" might include Cha checks to convince the rockstar bard that you're the groupie he wants to take backstage, since that's not a situation where Diplomacy can be used (the rockstar isn't going to listen to anyone talk for a full minute). But that doesn't mean that you ought to apply a charisma check in a situation in which Diplomacy is appropriate. That is like calling for a strength check to sunder an opponent's weapon because Strength is used for checks to break objects.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I usually run groups of four or five players. I'd say a socially incompetent PC shows up maybe every other time. It's more than I would expect, but usually there is some entertainment value. I think it's funny when the players conspire to "hide the barbarian" every time they have to talk to an NPC.

401 to 450 of 720 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 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.