It's a roleplaying game dude. The GM is allowed to roleplay his NPCs noticing your bad cha just as much as he can roleplay NPCs noticing you appear sickly (low con) or weak (low str).Except...how do you "notice bad Cha"?
Seriously, think about that for a second.
"Man, that guy just doesn't look very persuasive to me".
You can tell by appearance, SOMETIMES (since, as we've determined, Charisma does not always dictate your appearance, just how memorable it is, basically), but everything else is basically manners, leadership power, etc. which isn't something you can just look at and tell whether someone has or not.
And even with appearance, you can have high Cha and still be ugly as sin. So that's a wash too.
It's terrible roleplaying for you to read a character sheet and go "Well he has low Cha (or Int or Wis), it puts a bigass neon sign above the guy's head that says so"
My grandfather would take over a room just by walking in it. Call it presence, but he would suddenly be the most noticeable thing in the room. That would probably be a function of charisma. Conversely, someone that tends to "meld with the wallpaper"would probably be a signal,of a low charisma?
Also, a to the having a low charisma and taking diplomacy ... I view that somewhat like someone with Aspergers learning social coping techniques. They have learned through study what other people understand instinctively.
Also, a to the having a low charisma and taking diplomacy ... I view that somewhat like someone with Aspergers learning social coping techniques. They have learned through study what other people understand instinctively.
And get a LOT better at it than most of their peers? Because that's what the game rules model. My understanding is that, in "D&D Next," your raw stats count for more and your static bonuses for less; in that respect, it may be what you're talking about. (I would probably prefer something like that, to be honest.)
Because in D&D Next you never outgrow the d20. Everything you are depends FAR more on how lucky your rolls are than strategy or build or tactics.
Also, a to the having a low charisma and taking diplomacy ... I view that somewhat like someone with Aspergers learning social coping techniques. They have learned through study what other people understand instinctively.And get a LOT better at it than most of their peers? Because that's what the game rules model. My understanding is that, in "D&D Next," your raw stats count for more and your static bonuses for less; in that respect, it may be what you're talking about. (I would probably prefer something like that, to be honest.)
Keep in mind, you aren't talking about in most of these cases an actual social disability of that sort but a reduced social ability. Just like someone with a lower natural intelligence could nonetheless become much more of an expert on a particular topic than a much smarter person who didn't put the effort to it.
If you ever watches leverage, Parker's change from the beginning of the show to its end under Sophie's tutelage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quiet with that logic. It has no place here in this thread with 7 wis.
|
You don't think having only a 50/50 shot of having your class feature work (on an encounter not meant to be challenging in teh slightest, no less, since it's CR=APL) is ineffective?Hmm. 50/50 is ineffective, but 60/40, all of a sudden, is effective?
Class features aren't supposed to be "I win" buttons. That's why you get multiple spells.
60/40 is a lot better than 50/50 Orfamay.
And no, they're not supposed to be "I win" buttons, but neither are they supposed to be exceedingly unreliable.
A martial character who can't hit average AC at least 75% of the time is failing miserably. Likewise a caster whose spells don't work more than half the time is failing.
Question on this. Lets use martials for the examples.
What is the average AC for opponents for a first level character?
Question on this. Lets use martials for the examples.What is the average AC for opponents for a first level character?
IIRC a 14 or so for most monsters.
So a guy with say, a 16 in his hitting stat, with full BaB, is only hitting that 14 50% of the time. He is sub-par (though not crippled, at least you can swing unlimited times a day).
An 18 boosts that to 60%, much more acceptable. 75% was a bit of an exaggeration.
Chance to hit also drasticaly changes over levels. At first level, martials might have only 50/50 to hit, but if they hit the enemy dies. At 5th level, they should be up to at least 75% hit, but a regular hit might not kill an enemy.
Also, at first levelnemy AC is incredibly swingy depending on if you gear enemies up or not. Dogs and zombies will have crappy AC but an orc warrior with splint mail and large shield can have nearly 20.
|
|
Question on this. Lets use martials for the examples.What is the average AC for opponents for a first level character?
IIRC a 14 or so for most monsters.
So a guy with say, a 16 in his hitting stat, with full BaB, is only hitting that 14 50% of the time. He is sub-par (though not crippled, at least you can swing unlimited times a day).
An 18 boosts that to 60%, much more acceptable. 75% was a bit of an exaggeration.
This example is 16 stat, bab +1, and weapon focus?
Edit: myself I usually have trouble hitting because of constant low rolls not low ability scores.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that this is simply not true; the paladin is a classic example. One of the key features of a paladin is that there are certain actions that are simply out of bounds for a paladin; he must, for example, refrain from lying. A cavalier similarly has his code, and a cleric is beholden to his god. ("A cleric who grossly violates the code of conduct required by her god loses all spells and class features, except for armor and shield proficiencies and proficiency with simple weapons.")
Yeah but in general you don't play a Paladin if you intend to get around by lying. Clerics are even easier, you just pick the god of "whatever I was going to do anyway." (or for Cavaliers, the order of "do what I was going to do anyway.")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In D&D/PF, some people try to "solve" it by appointing Billy the sole authority on hits and misses and their effects, but that just changes the game to Billy-May-I; it still has no actual rules. You might love Billy, and always trust his ruling to make a fun story, but it's not really a game with rules at that point, and it's dishonest to pretend like it is.
I think this is the appeal of the game to Billy - unearned authority. I'm sure we all know that GM, yes?
Question on this. Lets use martials for the examples.What is the average AC for opponents for a first level character?
IIRC a 14 or so for most monsters.
So a guy with say, a 16 in his hitting stat, with full BaB, is only hitting that 14 50% of the time. He is sub-par (though not crippled, at least you can swing unlimited times a day).
An 18 boosts that to 60%, much more acceptable. 75% was a bit of an exaggeration.
This example is 16 stat, bab +1, and weapon focus?
Edit: myself I usually have trouble hitting because of constant low rolls not low ability scores.
Just 16 and BaB +1. You need a 10 to hit a 14, which is 50%. I don't usually take Weapon Focus at 1st, if at all. Other Feats usually take priority.
|
|
Just 16 and BaB +1. You need a 10 to hit a 14, which is 50%. I don't usually take Weapon Focus at 1st, if at all. Other Feats usually take priority.
Question on this. Lets use martials for the examples.What is the average AC for opponents for a first level character?
IIRC a 14 or so for most monsters.
So a guy with say, a 16 in his hitting stat, with full BaB, is only hitting that 14 50% of the time. He is sub-par (though not crippled, at least you can swing unlimited times a day).
An 18 boosts that to 60%, much more acceptable. 75% was a bit of an exaggeration.
This example is 16 stat, bab +1, and weapon focus?
Edit: myself I usually have trouble hitting because of constant low rolls not low ability scores.
I understand what your saying but not taking weapon focus is a personal preference. 16 stat is a very viable option. Going to 20 is min/maxing which is not bad in and of itself.
I'm more of an optimiser myself.
I understand what your saying but not taking weapon focus is a personal preference. 16 stat is a very viable option. Going to 20 is min/maxing which is not bad in and of itself.
I'm more of an optimiser myself.
It's a personal preference, but one based in a bit of optimization as well. Generally, Weapon Focus isn't a good option for 1st level (and for many builds at ANY level) unless you're having a really hard time hitting...which a full BaB character who's got optimized stats (18 hitting stat) won't be.
|
|
It's a personal preference, but one based in a bit of optimization as well. Generally, Weapon Focus isn't a good option for 1st level (and for many builds at ANY level) unless you're having a really hard time hitting...which a full BaB character who's got optimized stats (18 hitting stat) won't be.I understand what your saying but not taking weapon focus is a personal preference. 16 stat is a very viable option. Going to 20 is min/maxing which is not bad in and of itself.
I'm more of an optimiser myself.
I agree.
Intelligence: Knowing a tomato is a fruit.
Wisdom: Knowing not to put tomato in fruit salad.
Charisma: Being able to successfully market tomato-based fruit salad.
Isn't Salsa a tomato based fruit salad?
It's a roleplaying game dude. The GM is allowed to roleplay his NPCs noticing your bad cha just as much as he can roleplay NPCs noticing you appear sickly (low con) or weak (low str).Except...how do you "notice bad Cha"?
Seriously, think about that for a second.
"Man, that guy just doesn't look very persuasive to me".
You can tell by appearance, SOMETIMES (since, as we've determined, Charisma does not always dictate your appearance, just how memorable it is, basically), but everything else is basically manners, leadership power, etc. which isn't something you can just look at and tell whether someone has or not.
And even with appearance, you can have high Cha and still be ugly as sin. So that's a wash too.
It's terrible roleplaying for you to read a character sheet and go "Well he has low Cha (or Int or Wis), it puts a bigass neon sign above the guy's head that says so"
IRL humans make character assessments within fractions of a second. It is what we are built to do, as a social species. We can read each other, expressions, body language, and when we speak, we hear emotions, tone, inflection... words alone are not how we communicate.
This isn’t something most people are overtly aware of, but we all get a feel for someone immediately. How many expressions have you heard that make a nod to this fact? On some level you already know this.
First impressions are important too. They are the base on which all other interactions are built. You can sometimes redeem a bad first impression, but it isn’t easy, and takes time and effort or luck. Why? Because in those very first seconds of meeting someone, they have sized you up, their mind has crunched the massive amount of data it has taken in during that short moment, and came to a conclusion about you already.
So, being able to ‘see’ how charismatic someone is, isn’t much of a stretch… at all.
Some people just want to pretend they don't have 7 cha and any GM who thinks otherwise is cheating.No one is pretending; see the numbers above. If we actually follow the written game rules, a Cha 7/Int 14 character is objectively better at social interaction than a Cha 14/Int 9 character, all other things being equal. (I totally agree with you that he shouldn't be, by the way, but by the rules he is!) If we ignore that, we're ignoring the game rules. I wouldn't call it "cheating" -- I'd call it not actually playing the game.
That's not true.
You could make a character with Cha7/Int 14 that is better than a Cha 14/Int 7 character at socializing, but that is by no means a foregone conclusion.
Indeed, it likely to be completely the opposite.
Additionally, 'all things being equal', the Int 7/Cha 14 guy can be 4 higher at any of the social skill than that Int 14/Cha 7 guy. That is a substantial difference.
Just 16 and BaB +1. You need a 10 to hit a 14, which is 50%. I don't usually take Weapon Focus at 1st, if at all. Other Feats usually take priority.
To be nit-picky, if you need a 10 to hit, it's a 55% chance to hit.
Though, I think in actuality, many monsters at 1st level have an AC above 14. Checking through the CR1 monsters in the bestiary 1, there are 23 monsters. Of those, 7 have 14 AC, 4 have 13 or lower, and 12 have 15 or higher.
And this is not including NPC's, of course, which can often have over 14 AC (a CR1 warrior has 150 gp to spend on defensive equipment, and just a chainmail means AC 16; scale mail and large shield means 17, assuming neutral dex. Even an archer is likely to have an AC of 16 (+3 dex +3 studded leather))
I can see the point you are trying to make but cha skills are useful, and there's a lot of them.Absolutely true! But the number of them is a strong argument in favor of Int mattering more than Cha, because higher Int = more skills.
If you have a +2 Cha bonus and 1 skill that depends on Cha (2 skill points/level, -2 Int penalty), and I have a -2 Cha penalty and 4 skills that depend on Cha (2 skill points/level, +2 Int penalty), and we're 8th level, our Cha-based skills might look like this:
You: Bluff +2, Diplomacy +2, Intimidate +2, Sense Motive +13.
Me: Bluff +9, Diplomacy +9, Intimidate +9, Sense Motive +9.You are somewhat better at sensing motives, and WAY worse at everything else that's Cha-based. Unless the DM ignores the rules and just makes me auto-fail at all of them, to "teach me a lesson."
The number of skills is actually favoring Cha. You have the relationship reversed.
If there are 100 Cha based skills, Cha matter more by a ludicrous amount, as you would need astronomical levels of Int to make up for it. If there is only 1 Cha based skill, Int is more valuable, because it makes up for the lack of Cha point for point by level 1.
Also, a to the having a low charisma and taking diplomacy ... I view that somewhat like someone with Aspergers learning social coping techniques. They have learned through study what other people understand instinctively.And get a LOT better at it than most of their peers? Because that's what the game rules model. My understanding is that, in "D&D Next," your raw stats count for more and your static bonuses for less; in that respect, it may be what you're talking about. (I would probably prefer something like that, to be honest.)
I’m mildly autistic. In game that would likely be expressed as having a low cha. But I can be exceptionally diplomatic when I decide to be. This would be expressed in game with ranks, as I’ve trained to be able to do this… a lot.
When I 'turn on' the 'act charming' routine, I'm devastatingly good at it. But it is tiring, and I don't much enjoy keeping track of that many variables in real time in a social setting. It is nearly painful, taxing in the extreme.
I very much know what ‘having ranks’ in a skill that you have ‘attribute penalties’ in is like. I have been taught, trained, I have studied and practiced. Much like many people would learn a subject like math or science, I have studied socialization.
It always feels like an uphill battle. I might not be a natural charmer, but I can still do it when I choose to. I understand what is happening on a totally different level than someone who hasn’t studied socialization as well.
There are significant differences between being naturally good at things and learning to be good at things. One of the key differences, I’ve found, is level of conscious awareness. The inverse case is with all things mathematic, or mechanical. In dealing with machines or numbers, I use my intuition, and ‘just know’ when things are not right. It can sometimes take me a while to figure out what is wrong, or how it is wrong, but I ‘just know’.
I imagine that is how a naturally charismatic individual interacts with people. They ‘just know’ how to carry themselves, their natural tones, inflections, body language all ‘just are’ the kinds of behaviors that people notice and respond to. They rely on intuition and instinct.
Maybe I’m off base? But it ‘seems’ this way to me, from what I’ve surmised.
Either way, I'm firmly in the camp that believes that you can overcome your weaknesses with dedication and perseverance, unrelenting pursuit of improvement and learning. That you can eventually become good at what is naturally your weakness. Even if it isn’t easy.
Just 16 and BaB +1. You need a 10 to hit a 14, which is 50%. I don't usually take Weapon Focus at 1st, if at all. Other Feats usually take priority.
Question on this. Lets use martials for the examples.What is the average AC for opponents for a first level character?
IIRC a 14 or so for most monsters.
So a guy with say, a 16 in his hitting stat, with full BaB, is only hitting that 14 50% of the time. He is sub-par (though not crippled, at least you can swing unlimited times a day).
An 18 boosts that to 60%, much more acceptable. 75% was a bit of an exaggeration.
This example is 16 stat, bab +1, and weapon focus?
Edit: myself I usually have trouble hitting because of constant low rolls not low ability scores.
Str 14 and BaB +1 has a 50% to hit AC 14. Interestingly, you're right on the 18 Str hit %, so I'm not exactly sure where you went wrong.
But an 11 or higher is the 50% magic number, not 10. If that was the issue.
So, a Str 16 +1 BaB is 55% against AC 14, 65% if they flank or charge, and 75% if they do both.
Why is he sub-par? What do you consider par to be?
Question Remy.
You've trained hard to overcome your weakness. Is your weakness now gone completely or is it only gone when you 'use' your training.
A little of both. I'm 'less awkward' overall, and 'good' when I am actively trying. Instead of just 'always awkward and socially clueless, always'.
My awareness has gone up as a baseline. I’m not blind to the various means of communication any more. I can avoid many of the ‘now obvious’ pitfalls in interactions. But to make use of this understanding to its fullest I have to put in a good deal of conscious effort and energy to ‘broadcast’ the normally subconscious emotes and subtleties that are present in typical interactions.
That follow? Getting into subjective experiences can be a tricky subject to effectively communicate.
So, a Str 16 +1 BaB is 55% against AC 14, 65% if they flank or charge, and 75% if they do both.Why is he sub-par? What do you consider par to be?
Again, 14 AC may be the listed aim for CR1 monsters, but it doesn't match up with the CR1 monsters that actually exist - of the bestiary 1 monsters, 30% have AC14, 17% AC 13 or less, and 52% have an AC 15 or higher. A full 20% have an AC of 17, and most NPC's (especially those with a somewhat martial inclanation) will have similar AC. As an example, the CR1/2 and CR1/3 humanoid and undead monsters have the following distribution: AC12 = 1; AC 13 = 1; AC15 = 3, AC 16 = 5, AC 17 = 1. And that's for CR 1/2 and 1/3; adding one to two levels of warrior (or switching them to PC classes) and the equipment that comes with it is likely to increase AC, and certainly not reduce it.
Stats represent multiple things.
If Charisma is an amalgam of "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" then one can reasonably say that a lower than average score represents one or more of these being below average while the others are not.
For example, you can be very attractive, but have no ability to lead and are fairly bland in conversation. So your Cha is 7 - but you are still very good looking.
In the exact same vein Intelligence is an amalgam of how well a character "learns and reasons".
So an Int 7 character could have difficulty learning new things (low skill points) but still be terrific at reasoning.
In the end it seems that this issue is simply various people disagreeing on what their personal definitions of WRONGBADFUN are.
|
|
Question Remy.
You've trained hard to overcome your weakness. Is your weakness now gone completely or is it only gone when you 'use' your training.
A little of both. I'm 'less awkward' overall, and 'good' when I am actively trying. Instead of just 'always awkward and socially clueless, always'.
My awareness has gone up as a baseline. I’m not blind to the various means of communication any more. I can avoid many of the ‘now obvious’ pitfalls in interactions. But to make use of this understanding to its fullest I have to put in a good deal of conscious effort and energy to ‘broadcast’ the normally subconscious emotes and subtleties that are present in typical interactions.
That follow? Getting into subjective experiences can be a tricky subject to effectively communicate.
Thanks and yes it follows.
In the exact same vein Intelligence is an amalgam of how well a character "learns and reasons".So an Int 7 character could have difficulty learning new things (low skill points) but still be terrific at reasoning.
In the end it seems that this issue is simply various people disagreeing on what their personal definitions of WRONGBADFUN are.
No, but a lot of people are trying to portray it that way.
Let me restate my point. A low stat can mean many things. But one thing it can't mean is nothing. If your character has a low intelligence, you can not then turn around and say "my character learns well and reasons well." If you have a low charisma stat, you cannot simultaneously have a pleasant personality, high personal magnetism, a natural gift for leadership, and an attractive personal appearance.
"Difficulty learning things" is much more general than just "low skill points." Difficulty learning things includes learning things in-game that aren't encompassed by skill checks. Are you trying to retrace your path through the garden maze? That's more difficult for such a character than it typically would. What's the correct title that the bard said you should use before the Serpent Potentate? You didn't learn it? Hmm....
|
|
Stats represent multiple things.
If Charisma is an amalgam of "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" then one can reasonably say that a lower than average score represents one or more of these being below average while the others are not.
For example, you can be very attractive, but have no ability to lead and are fairly bland in conversation. So your Cha is 7 - but you are still very good looking.
In the exact same vein Intelligence is an amalgam of how well a character "learns and reasons".
So an Int 7 character could have difficulty learning new things (low skill points) but still be terrific at reasoning.
In the end it seems that this issue is simply various people disagreeing on what their personal definitions of WRONGBADFUN are.
My opinion.
I wouldnt go so far. If you separate the components of the ability scores that much they may as well be considered different scores, so 12 plus ability scores instead of just 6.One or more of these components ARE what makes the score as a whole lower/greater then average, but the rest would be AT BEST average but probably not.
You could make a character with Cha7/Int 14 that is better than a Cha 14/Int 7 character at socializing, but that is by no means a foregone conclusion.
It's most likely, given the difference in skill points, barring human rogues and bards.
If there are 100 Cha based skills, Cha matter more by a ludicrous amount, as you would need astronomical levels of Int to make up for it.
Good thing there are not 100 Cha-based skills. Instead, the number of Cha-based skills is such that, barring bards with social-focused rogues, you need a high Int modifier to come close to obtaining. QED.
Indeed, it likely to be completely the opposite.
If your "likely" refers to a game in which there are 100 Cha-based skills, OK. But for Pathfinder, it's highly unlikely.
Stats represent multiple things.
If Charisma is an amalgam of "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" then one can reasonably say that a lower than average score represents one or more of these being below average while the others are not.
For example, you can be very attractive, but have no ability to lead and are fairly bland in conversation. So your Cha is 7 - but you are still very good looking.
In the exact same vein Intelligence is an amalgam of how well a character "learns and reasons".
So an Int 7 character could have difficulty learning new things (low skill points) but still be terrific at reasoning.
In the end it seems that this issue is simply various people disagreeing on what their personal definitions of WRONGBADFUN are.
My opinion.
I wouldnt go so far. If you separate the components of the ability scores that much they may as well be considered different scores, so 12 plus ability scores instead of just 6.One or more of these components ARE what makes the score as a whole lower/greater then average, but the rest would be AT BEST average but probably not.
But I could make a character that looked hideous (acid eaten face, for example) and give him an 18 Charisma. He would - by definition - have a terrible appearance but still manage to have a maximized score. So the various parts of a score can be singled out as a reason for that score.
And then there are other things like horrible monsters that are gruesome or even have no appearance at all and yet have good Cha scores.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Difficulty learning things" is much more general than just "low skill points." Difficulty learning things includes learning things in-game that aren't encompassed by skill checks.
Again, I totally agree that what you're saying should be the case. However, in the game rules we're playing under, "difficulty in learning things" is reflected in skill points, a penalty to Int-based skills like Knowledge, and a cap on the level of wizard spells you can potentially cast. And that's all.
Likewise, "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" are manifested as a modifier to Cha-based skills, to Leadership, and to attempts to control bound outsiders. And that's all. Within the existing game rules, it does not govern instantaneous reactions, for example -- even though most of us (myself included) seem to agree it probably should.
Again, I'm trying to be careful to distinguish between what the rules actually spell out, what they promise but don't spell out, and what we seem to want them to say.
"Difficulty learning things" is much more general than just "low skill points." Difficulty learning things includes learning things in-game that aren't encompassed by skill checks.Again, I totally agree that what you're saying should be the case. However, in the game rules we're playing under, "difficulty in learning things" is reflected in skill points, a penalty to Int-based skills like Knowledge, and a cap on the level of wizard spells you can potentially cast. And that's all.
Er, no.
"Difficulty in learning things" is reflected in exactly what the player and game master choose to make it reflected in.
* "Okay, I'm just going to walk back out through the maze before anyone hears the alarm."
* "How?"
* "The way we came in. I got in, I can get out."
* "You don't remember the way in."
* "What do you mean, I don't remember the way in?"
* "You have a low Intelligence. You didn't learn it as you came in."
* "But in this game, low intelligence is only reflected in skill points."
* "Nope. It's also reflected in the fact that you've been lost in this maze for ten minutes now."
* "YOU CAN'T PLAY MY CHARACTER FOR ME!"
* (turning to another player) "So, Fred's been in the garden maze now for a quarter of an hour, and the palace guards are starting to fan out over the grounds. What are you doing?"
Anyone can use the Always Turn Left rule for figuring out a maze.
Really? Where did the character learn that rule?
You're metagaming, and using player knowledge (like the Always Turn Left rule) to substitute for the character's lack of knowledge. (Oh, and, by the way, "always turn left" will not necessarily get you out of a maze if you're starting in the center. It will at best always return you to your starting point. So you're not only metagaming, but you're doing it unsuccessfully.)
This type of metagaming is exactly what this thread is about. "I know how to solve a maze, therefore so does my character."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er, no.
"Difficulty in learning things" is reflected in exactly what the player and game master choose to make it reflected in.
Then we're back to playing Magic Tea Party. Which is a fun pastime, if it works for you, but it's a story rather than a game with rules. Billy (aka the DM) is allowing/denying stuff on the fly, by fiat, using no guidelines other than so-called "common sense" (which, as we've seen, no two players ever agree on).
Anyone can use the Always Turn Left rule for figuring out a maze.Really? Where did the character learn that rule?
Anywhere they like to say they did. "I heard this from my uncle" or "It's an old aphorism in my homeland". Doesn't matter.
You're metagaming, and using player knowledge (like the Always Turn Left rule) to substitute for the character's lack of knowledge. (Oh, and, by the way, "always turn left" will not necessarily get you out of a maze if you're starting in the center. It will at best always return you to your starting point. So you're not only metagaming, but you're doing it unsuccessfully.)
Where in the rule book does it say you aren't allowed to use metagaming?
Players use player-based knowledge all the time during a game. To claim otherwise is delusional. I don't have to explain at the table how my character learned to follow a logical syllogism. Nor do I need to justify myself if my character says "a stitch in time saves nine" despite the fact that Old Richard's Almanac was never published in Golarion.
It's not badwrongfun.
|
|
Stats represent multiple things.
If Charisma is an amalgam of "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" then one can reasonably say that a lower than average score represents one or more of these being below average while the others are not.
For example, you can be very attractive, but have no ability to lead and are fairly bland in conversation. So your Cha is 7 - but you are still very good looking.
In the exact same vein Intelligence is an amalgam of how well a character "learns and reasons".
So an Int 7 character could have difficulty learning new things (low skill points) but still be terrific at reasoning.
In the end it seems that this issue is simply various people disagreeing on what their personal definitions of WRONGBADFUN are.
My opinion.
I wouldnt go so far. If you separate the components of the ability scores that much they may as well be considered different scores, so 12 plus ability scores instead of just 6.One or more of these components ARE what makes the score as a whole lower/greater then average, but the rest would be AT BEST average but probably not.
But I could make a character that looked hideous (acid eaten face, for example) and give him an 18 Charisma. He would - by definition - have a terrible appearance but still manage to have a maximized score. So the various parts of a score can be singled out as a reason for that score.
And then there are other things like horrible monsters that are gruesome or even have no appearance at all and yet have good Cha scores.
Again your looking at extreme example which, in my opinion, are not the general. Yes, you can do what your saying but you'd have to clear it with your GM so pretty much we're talking houserules. Large disparities in ability score components arent usually done.
I pretty much agree with how Kazan discribed cha.
Stats represent multiple things.
If Charisma is an amalgam of "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" then one can reasonably say that a lower than average score represents one or more of these being below average while the others are not.
For example, you can be very attractive, but have no ability to lead and are fairly bland in conversation. So your Cha is 7 - but you are still very good looking.
In the exact same vein Intelligence is an amalgam of how well a character "learns and reasons".
So an Int 7 character could have difficulty learning new things (low skill points) but still be terrific at reasoning.
In the end it seems that this issue is simply various people disagreeing on what their personal definitions of WRONGBADFUN are.
My opinion.
I wouldnt go so far. If you separate the components of the ability scores that much they may as well be considered different scores, so 12 plus ability scores instead of just 6.One or more of these components ARE what makes the score as a whole lower/greater then average, but the rest would be AT BEST average but probably not.
But I could make a character that looked hideous (acid eaten face, for example) and give him an 18 Charisma. He would - by definition - have a terrible appearance but still manage to have a maximized score. So the various parts of a score can be singled out as a reason for that score.
And then there are other things like horrible monsters that are gruesome or even have no appearance at all and yet have good Cha scores.
Again your looking at extreme example which, in my opinion, are not the general. Yes, you can do what your saying but you'd have to clear it with your GM so pretty much we're talking houserules. Large disparities in ability score components arent usually done.
I pretty much agree with how Kazan discribed cha.
Not sure why you think I would need to clear this with the GM. By RAW I can decide how my character looks (p.15). It's up to nobody but the player.
|
|
Not sure why you think I would...Stats represent multiple things.
If Charisma is an amalgam of "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" then one can reasonably say that a lower than average score represents one or more of these being below average while the others are not.
For example, you can be very attractive, but have no ability to lead and are fairly bland in conversation. So your Cha is 7 - but you are still very good looking.
In the exact same vein Intelligence is an amalgam of how well a character "learns and reasons".
So an Int 7 character could have difficulty learning new things (low skill points) but still be terrific at reasoning.
In the end it seems that this issue is simply various people disagreeing on what their personal definitions of WRONGBADFUN are.
My opinion.
I wouldnt go so far. If you separate the components of the ability scores that much they may as well be considered different scores, so 12 plus ability scores instead of just 6.One or more of these components ARE what makes the score as a whole lower/greater then average, but the rest would be AT BEST average but probably not.
But I could make a character that looked hideous (acid eaten face, for example) and give him an 18 Charisma. He would - by definition - have a terrible appearance but still manage to have a maximized score. So the various parts of a score can be singled out as a reason for that score.
And then there are other things like horrible monsters that are gruesome or even have no appearance at all and yet have good Cha scores.
Again your looking at extreme example which, in my opinion, are not the general. Yes, you can do what your saying but you'd have to clear it with your GM so pretty much we're talking houserules. Large disparities in ability score components arent usually done.
I pretty much agree with how Kazan discribed cha.
Pg 15 says you should give your character a physical appearence, i.e. height, weight, hair, etc..
If you want to be contrary and say, my characters face looks like its in the process of melting off, just to prove you have control over how your character looks. Go right ahead but understand that you chose to have a character with an extreme look in a bad way and your GM could chose to have everyone you encounter have an extreme intial reaction.
Where in the rule book does it say you aren't allowed to use metagaming?
And there, in a nutshell, is the disagreement.