Wait, do people actually ignore any potential RP when they dump to 7? I thought that the entire point of dumping down to a 7 was for RP purposes.I've never seen anyone try to ignore it completely...
from the discussion, it sounds like people try to rp their 7s, but Jacob Saltband doesn't like the way they RP them.
I've seen plenty of people try to ignore a 7 completely and pretend it wasn't there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if morality is defined as choosing the best possible action which achieve the greatest good,
This is a terrible definition of morality. Please stop.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Likewise though dumping down to 7 is silly and reprehensible.Tell me more about the morality of having a below-average stat in an elfgameHrm.
Taking a course of actions precludes the ability to take alternate courses of action. Given than there are untold numbers of potential actions you exclude when taking any action, and the likelihood of one of (or many of) those not taken actions to lead to better results and greater overall happiness, then it can be assumed that in all likelihood any action taken is not the maximally good option, and if morality is defined as choosing the best possible action which achieve the greatest good, then all actions are morally wrong, in all likelihood.
Or some such nonsense.
Are you actually a computer mainframe from a 70s b-movie that gained sentience
if morality is defined as choosing the best possible action which achieve the greatest good,This is a terrible definition of morality. Please stop.
Or some such nonsense.
Hush now dear Vivianne.
Are you actually a computer mainframe from a 70s b-movie that gained sentienceLikewise though dumping down to 7 is silly and reprehensible.Tell me more about the morality of having a below-average stat in an elfgameHrm.
Taking a course of actions precludes the ability to take alternate courses of action. Given than there are untold numbers of potential actions you exclude when taking any action, and the likelihood of one of (or many of) those not taken actions to lead to better results and greater overall happiness, then it can be assumed that in all likelihood any action taken is not the maximally good option, and if morality is defined as choosing the best possible action which achieve the greatest good, then all actions are morally wrong, in all likelihood.
Or some such nonsense.
>.>
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It all makes sense now
|
Wait, do people actually ignore any potential RP when they dump to 7? I thought that the entire point of dumping down to a 7 was for RP purposes.I've never seen anyone try to ignore it completely...
from the discussion, it sounds like people try to rp their 7s, but Jacob Saltband doesn't like the way they RP them.
Saying that your lower then average int fighter is a 'instinctual' tactic genius isnt RPing your low stat its ignoring it.
I think it's interesting now days that Reading is automatic with an Int 3.
In 2E you had to actually take a profiecency for that, and the majority of peasants couldn't read at all.
Someone posted that the village idiot has an Int of 3... (I'll assume that is a stat block posted somewhere I haven't seen..)
An Int of 7 is still FOUR points higher then needing to read... and ThREE points higher then the village idiot.
I think this is also where the difference of opinions are coming from. People keep talking abour standard deviations and normal distrubutions, but 'starting stats' are very fluid.
In actual play, there are stats that go from 3 or less all the way up to 25+
Making 7 an idiot and 18 a rocket scientist breaks the game when you start getting closer to the 1's and 30's
7 would probably be a C student in class. He would know some stuff, but he wouldn't know everything. Until the questions come up... the average person would not be able to TELL he was the 'dumb' one.
|
|
Wait, do people actually ignore any potential RP when they dump to 7? I thought that the entire point of dumping down to a 7 was for RP purposes.Is this sarcasm or are you actually asking a question?
I'm actually asking if people do this. The closest I have seen to trying to ignore a 7 was a sorcerer who would use bluff to pretend to know everything because he didn't like being called stupid. It made for some hilarious roleplay encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
7 would probably be a C student in class. He would know some stuff, but he wouldn't know everything. Until the questions come up... the average person would not be able to TELL he was the 'dumb' one.
Irl grades represent dedication and willingness to conform to the assigned tasks, to follow through until completion. Participation.
At least in general education and regular public school courses.
If someone is giving it their all and still getting Cs? Yeah, that is a 7.
|
|
I'm actually asking if people do this. The closest I have seen to trying to ignore a 7 was a sorcerer who would use bluff to pretend to know everything because he didn't like being called stupid. It made for some hilarious roleplay encounters.Wait, do people actually ignore any potential RP when they dump to 7? I thought that the entire point of dumping down to a 7 was for RP purposes.Is this sarcasm or are you actually asking a question?
You actually get people who stats to 7 before race, then come up with excuses like 'He's an instinctual tactical genius' with nothing but the pkayers say so and they believe that should enough to ignore a low ability score RP wise.
Or you have thoses that say because there is an in game penalty (minus to skill rolls, maybe saving throws, etc) that its a 'new magical houserule' if you say they need to RP their low scores.
Not saying if your playing with like minded people that wrong (but you are) but dont expect everyone to play the game the same way (MY WAY IS THE RIGHT WAY).
|
Saying that your lower then average int fighter is a 'instinctual' tactic genius isnt RPing your low stat its ignoring it.Wait, do people actually ignore any potential RP when they dump to 7? I thought that the entire point of dumping down to a 7 was for RP purposes.I've never seen anyone try to ignore it completely...
from the discussion, it sounds like people try to rp their 7s, but Jacob Saltband doesn't like the way they RP them.
I would disagree. Sometimes, low intelligence (modeled by Int) is measured more as the speed of getting to the best answer, rather than the quality of thinking. (IQ tests variously build in speed as an important factor.) So, one of my 'stupid' characters in another game would get the great idea - or understand he was being insulted - but just much, much later. You could also be much more intelligent (or cunning) in one way but much less intelligent overall, such as with many animals - getting back to the question 'instinct' - or an 'idiot savant'.
I recently created a low-Cha (Cha 7) wizard, which can be classic stat dumping (although he is fairly strong, a 9 for an elf), but which has created my new favorite character - my "elf with Asperger's" - exaggerating some of my own characteristics.
On the other hand, a low-Int gnome cleric, although the idea charmed me, didn't work out as well, so I re-wrote her for 2nd level with Int 12 - more as I was playing her, along with my 12 Int Paladin and 14 Int/7 Wis Oracle.
Do we need an ability score to govern instinct?
How does that follow? What does that have to do with whether instinct should be governed by an ability score?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What ability score governs the ability to love?
Dexterity and Constitution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I DM my homegames ( not PFS organized play ), I let characters have scores of seven or lower; However I ask them to describe how these low scores came to be and how they will work to their character's detriment. For example, if a character has an intelligence score of 6 0r 7, what will they NOT be able to do. I also do away with the minimum of one new skill learned per level, so if a character's INT is too low, they may get no new skills upon gaining levels.
TBQH that's a pretty s&@@ty houserule.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not really the point buy down to 7 thats a problem.
I think many of the iconics have at least one 8 stat, IIRC.
Its the 20 INT 20 DEX Elven Dervish Dancer Kensai Magus who has a 7 str and 7 cha ALL because the player wants +6 to hit and Damage and an AC of 24 at level 1.
(or similar stat based 'wonder build')
THEN they get mad when piglet and poo bear the halfling monk twins, pin them... umm dude you have a 7 str.
Or he cant carry treasure out of the dragon hoarde.... dude! you have a seven strength.
MOST of the builds like this are based on people looking at face value immediate game mechanics... and they lead to these really bad situations.
So MANY people rush to judgement when they see a 7 stat and face palm...
Didn't Raistlin Majere have a 6 con?
I think Caramon had a 7 int.
Classically good characters, that are role played well and equally defined by their low stats as they are by their high ones.... no one ever writes a good story about the guy with the 10 int and strength and his average day at an average job.
|
|
It's not really the point buy down to 7 thats a problem.
I think many of the iconics have at least one 8 stat, IIRC.
Its the 20 INT 20 DEX Elven Dervish Dancer Kensai Magus who has a 7 str and 7 cha ALL because the player wants +6 to hit and Damage and an AC of 24 at level 1.
(or similar stat based 'wonder build')
THEN they get mad when piglet and poo bear the halfling monk twins, pin them... umm dude you have a 7 str.
Or he cant carry treasure out of the dragon hoarde.... dude! you have a seven strength.
MOST of the builds like this are based on people looking at face value immediate game mechanics... and they lead to these really bad situations.
So MANY people rush to judgement when they see a 7 stat and face palm...
Didn't Raistlin Majere have a 6 con?
I think Caramon had a 7 int.
Classically good characters, that are role played well and equally defined by their low stats as they are by their high ones.... no one ever writes a good story about the guy with the 10 int and strength and his average day at an average job.
Actually I think Caramon had a 10 int but was VERY over shadowed by his more intelligent brother.
And With the NPC Codex very few of the iconics have below a 10.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And With the NPC Codex very few of the iconics have below a 10.
There is a druid with a Str of 6. The bard and ranger have Str 8 and Cha 8 respectively, but those are 10 before racial modifiers.
I guess what we learned is that Lini is a dirty minmaxer and should feel bad. This is the face of a bad roleplayer!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
.... no one ever writes a good story about the guy with the 10 int and strength and his average day at an average job.
Try reading a book that doesn't have a half-elf wizard on the cover.
|
To each his or her own opinion. But I have found that this mitigates against excessive min-maxing, while at the same time aids role playing. And, I have recieved no complaints from my players.
This really doesn't do anything to prevent min-maxing or optimizing. What is does change is what particular stat array is optimal given the additional penalties you gave low stats. Now pure optimizers will stick to 10 as a "dump-stat".
With this houserule, only someone who is genuinely interested in roleplaying a low stat will chose to have one, and they are being penalized both mechanically and in their gameplay options for doing so. This seems cross purpose to me, as I prefer to reward players who like to go above and beyond in a roleplaying sense.
And With the NPC Codex very few of the iconics have below a 10.There is a druid with a Str of 6. The bard and ranger have Str 8 and Cha 8 respectively, but those are 10 before racial modifiers.
I guess what we learned is that Lini is a dirty minmaxer and should feel bad. This is the face of a bad roleplayer!
Urgh, such disgusting min-maxing. Lol.
|
|
So what your saying is that every interaction is a diplomacy roll?@Malachi Silverclaw.
My turn to say some thing narrow minded.
From the way you talk about diplomacy I get the imperssion that, to you, if a charactrer doesnt have ranks in diplomacy they not have a personality or personal magnetism. Thats what I get from the way you talk about the diplomacy skill in your last post.
As I stated, the result of the diplomacy check is what determines if that person liked you. You can use that skill untrained. Creatures with higher Cha are more likely to make a good first impression than those with low Cha. So, not having any ranks in the skill does not equal 'zero personality or personal magnetism'.
Of course, if you're trained in personal interaction skills (skill ranks) then you are more likely to get a favourable reaction than if you don't have that training.
From the situation you gave in your examples, we're talking about a person's initial impression of you. Is that impression dictated by your Cha score? Or is it just modified by your Cha mod?
How do the game rules determine what a creature's first impression of you is?
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.
Try Again: You cannot use Diplomacy to influence a given creature's attitude more than once in a 24-hour period
So the creatures have an initial attitude to people like you (according to the situation etc.) before they meet you! Then they meet you, and interact with you for one minute. At that point a Diplomacy skill check is rolled, the result alters their attitude and this determines what their first impression of you is! It is not determined by Cha, just modified by it.
You can't just look at a creature's Cha score to determine first impression, it's the result of the Diplomacy check that does that.
Similarly, you can't just look at a creature's Int score and determine if they know a particular fact; you have to make a roll.
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.So the creatures have an initial attitude to people like you (according to the situation etc.) before they meet you! Then they meet you, and interact with you for one minute. At that point a Diplomacy skill check is rolled, the result alters their attitude and this determines what their first impression of you is! It is not determined by Cha, just modified by it.
You can't just look at a creature's Cha score to determine first impression, it's the result of the Diplomacy check that does that.
Similarly, you can't just look at a creature's Int score and determine if they know a particular fact; you have to make a roll.
That seems a strained reading. I interpret it as you can change their initial attitude of you (which is usually set in the adventure background) to something else, at which point their attitude is different.
E.g., Rosie's initial attitude in Skull & Shackles is
Of course, this also misses a major issue in that it requires effort, time, and a skill check to effect this. Their first impression, by definition, will be before any skill checks have had a chance to be made.
Basically, what you're describing is a person who's fundamentally not very nice or likeable but who can put on a facade well. I've known lots of people like that....
|
|
Of course, this also misses a major issue in that it requires effort, time, and a skill check to effect this. Their first impression, by definition, will be before any skill checks have had a chance to be made.
If that is the case, what mechanic does PF use for the first impression? There will either be a roll (a Cha check? Diplomacy is a modified Cha check) or there won't be a roll and the Cha score will determine first impression.
But without a roll, everyone will have the same first impression of the same creature. That wouldn't make sense.
You have it backwards; Rosie's initial attitude is the same for all creatures, which may be different than Owlbear's.
|
|
You have it backwards; Rosie's initial attitude is the same for all creatures, which may be different than Owlbear's.
As we've both said, Rosie's (or whoever's) initial attitude is the attitude she has before you turn up! This is her theoretical starting attitude. What her attitude actually is when she eventually meets and interacts with you is based on that Diplomacy roll result, not on your actual Cha score.
You have it backwards; Rosie's initial attitude is the same for all creatures, which may be different than Owlbear's.As we've both said, Rosie's (or whoever's) initial attitude is the attitude she has before you turn up!
Yes.
This is her theoretical starting attitude.
... and her actual starting attitude.
What her attitude actually is when she eventually meets and interacts with you is
... the initial starting attitude. Of course, during the course of playing the module, you have the opportunity to increase or decrease that attitude, ...
based on that Diplomacy roll result, not on your actual Cha score.
.... if you choose to take Diplomacy actions targeted on her. You can also simply ignore her (for example, to concentrate on one of several other people in the module), in which case her attitude remains unchanged.
The initial attitude is what it is -- and it explicitly takes time and effort to change it. It's not a freebie as soon as you meet her. There are very good in-grame reasons for this. Among other things, people who observe you "sucking up" to Rosie may have positive or negative reactions themselves. If I start hanging out with the Jets and trying to make them like me, the Sharks are likely to notice and object. Befriend Ron Weasley, and Draco Malfoy may start to dislike you.
|
|
And With the NPC Codex very few of the iconics have below a 10.There is a druid with a Str of 6. The bard and ranger have Str 8 and Cha 8 respectively, but those are 10 before racial modifiers.
I guess what we learned is that Lini is a dirty minmaxer and should feel bad. This is the face of a bad roleplayer!
Where in my post did I at any time use the words 'dirty min/maxer'? All I was say in the post you quoted was that not only a few iconic characters actually have below a 10.
If you're going to have an INT of 7, you don't get to come up with all of the clever solutions to the problems confronting the party.
Well, that's just your houserule. We know what INT does in Pathfinder, it mostly affects skill points, certain skills, and casting ability. At no point does it TAKE AWAY a player's ability to ROLE play.
We're playing a tabletop RPG, not a computer videogame where some number determines your valid dialog choices. If I wanted to ROLLplay instead of ROLEplay, I'd go play Fallout on the computer, not pathfinder with real people.
-----
Punishing low stats is pretty easy within the frameworks of the rules: ABILITY DAMAGE.
If you're going to have an INT of 7, you don't get to come up with all of the clever solutions to the problems confronting the party.Well, that's just your houserule. We know what INT does in Pathfinder, it mostly affects skill points, certain skills, and casting ability. At no point does it TAKE AWAY a player's ability to ROLE play.
We're playing a tabletop RPG, not a computer videogame where some number determines your valid dialog choices. If I wanted to ROLLplay instead of ROLEplay, I'd go play Fallout on the computer, not pathfinder with real people.
-----
Punishing low stats is pretty easy within the frameworks of the rules: ABILITY DAMAGE.
People keep remarking about being extra special punished because they are asked to role play their attributes or skills. No one (well, maybe someone but not everyone) is saying that you have to play a drooling moron or an uncoordinated feeble-muscled nitwit or whatever. But a passing nod towards your stats -- both good and bad -- would be considered role playing,yes?
In the end, you have to pick how you are going to represent your character and sell your table and GM on your interpretation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end, you have to pick how you are going to represent your character and sell your table and GM on your interpretation.
My favorite part of character creation is the tribunal at the end where I make players justify their decisions about their character to me. You might think it's unnecessary or even harmful, but I think it adds a lot. I really like the surge of power I feel when I tell people to change things because I don't like them or because I disagree about a minor detail. Also I get to bang a gavel!
|
|
I did search on the subjects we been taking about and have found these same arguments (ability scores should be roleplayed/ability scores have no place in the way I play my character/skills replace ability score/etc) have been going on for years without anytype oh resolution and probably will continue, so I'm done here.
I just have one more thing to say to thoses who disagree with, I'M RIGHT AND YOUR WRONG ; p
In this thread.
In the end, you have to pick how you are going to represent your character and sell your table and GM on your interpretation.My favorite part of character creation is the tribunal at the end where I make players justify their decisions about their character to me. You might think it's unnecessary or even harmful, but I think it adds a lot. I really like the surge of power I feel when I tell people to change things because I don't like them or because I disagree about a minor detail. Also I get to bang a gavel!
Tiresome.
Fortunately I don't have to worry about that wonderful surge of power. The players at my table aren't trying to squeeze out points nor are they looking to try to misrepresent themselves.
Lastly, and this may just be me and the GMs I've run across over the last 35 or so years, but yeah, they do ask you about your character and why you picked that and no you cannot have that. YMMV, not valid wherever you live, etc etc.