| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jacob: I'm guessing I must have missed a controversial thread about skill-use and ability scores, because I've read three threads now in which it seems like you're trying to find some very specific answers about skills and ability scores — the precise purpose of which is eluding me. Are you looking for how-to advice, roleplaying ideas, clarification on terminology? Or are you trying to urge others to reflection on such matters?
I've been tempted to reply a couple times, but after reading your responses to other posters, I'm just not sure what you're looking for. What seems to be the crux of the issue?
|
So all socail interaction are only manipulations, scare tactics, and lies?Why are diplomacy, intimidate, and bluff considered 'social' skills?You use them to adjust the targets attitude or perception. What else could they be considered?
Usually. However, a character can be genuine when using diplomacy.
|
Jacob: I'm guessing I must have missed a controversial thread about skill-use and ability scores, because I've read three threads now in which it seems like you're trying to find some very specific answers about skills and ability scores — the precise purpose of which is eluding me. Are you looking for how-to advice, roleplaying ideas, clarification on terminology? Or are you trying to urge others to reflection on such matters?
I've been tempted to reply a couple times, but after reading your responses to other posters, I'm just not sure what you're looking for. What seems to be the crux of the issue?
To me skills have certain things they do in certain situation. Diplomacy in no way replaces your personality in every situation, so when your not attempting to manipulate someone diplomacy doesnt come into play. Unless you tell your GM that thats how your character works, in which case your character might eventually gain the reputation for being a manipulator.
I get the impression from various posts I've seen that some think that you can dump your cha then put some ranks in diplomacy and the characters listed cha becomes irrelevant.
But thats just me.
Also looking for some clarification on the way some skills work.
Human interaction pretty much only consists of manipulation, scare tactics, or outright lies. You do something I like, I positively reinforce that in order to manipulate you to continue to do so, you do something I don't like, I negatively reinforce that to manipulate you to cease doing so.
Example...We're hanging out at a bar, and you say "hey man, I got the first round." I smile using my mouth as well as eyes (or rather the muscles around my eyes if we're getting technical), maybe pat you on the shoulder in a friendly manner, and say "thanks man, you're alright" in a friendly tone.
Or, we're hanging out at the bar and you say "you got the first round right?" Maybe I frown, maybe I smile but if I do so it's only with my mouth though perhaps my brows narrow, and I likely cross my arms in something of a defensive posture saying "that a fact?" in a very measured tone.
If you want I can give examples of the same thing with intimidate and bluff, but time is tight at the moment.
|
|
I get the impression from various posts I've seen that some think that you can dump your cha then put some ranks in diplomacy and the characters listed cha becomes irrelevant.
But thats just me.
When it comes to diplomacy thats true. The same investment is required to overcome bluff, intimidate, handle animla, etc.etc. It would take a lot of investment to completely wipe out a low stat. Or are you impliying that having a low stat should have more of an impact on skills than just modifier?
|
|
You asked this in the other thread.
Ability modifiers apply to skills. Skills cover certain areas of the game mechanically. So called 'social' skills cover a cerian area of game mechanics when interacting with npcs.
Ability scores should have a roleplay impact in the game along side skills.
Of course that just my opinion.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My own opinion is that that is a nice concept in theory, but in practice leads to more problems then it solves. Mostly in the realm of Intelligence and Wisdom. One big redflag for me as a player, is when a GM drones on about how they wont accept well thoughtout ideas from PCs with low mental stats. The subject of real world smarts is incredibly subjective, most "intelligence tests" show a noticeable bias towards cultural leanings far more than they do toward any sort of mental aptitude. Least the ones I've studied have been shown to. I agree that someone with a six int and six wis probably shouldn't be coming up with a SWAT team style tactical assessment of how to raid a dungeon, but at the same time I'd rather play the damn game than argue over what a character is and isn't allowed to think.
Real world likability is, in my own opinion, even more subjective than mental ability. Traits that make one person charming or interesting to one person make them utterly annoying to another. Traits that one finds endearing in a person will be the things that drive the one person up the wall three months later. Can we accurately depict that in a game? I'm sure it's possible to do a better job than is currently able, but I don't sit down at a game table to play Sitcom the RPG.
At my own table, the attributes are a measure of the mechanical abilities of the character. Intelligence measures what bonuses you get on specific skills as well as how many skills you get, number of languages, and so on...Charisma measures specific skill bonuses and so on...ect ect...nothing more.
|
|
Can you provide some examples in action?
The character has a low cha score, lets say hes shy and sammers a little (cha 8-9), but since he has diplomacy ranks and its a class skill, hes able to get the guy to answer a few question inspite of an obvious minor hindrance.
Or we can do an above average cha (personal magnetism) and failed the diplomacy roll. This character didnt get the answers he wsnted but my have ended up with a date instead.
Edit: or we could do below average dex with acrobatic ranks. He can the acrobatics but his 'grace in motion' isnt as good.
|
|
My own opinion is that that is a nice concept in theory, but in practice leads to more problems then it solves. Mostly in the realm of Intelligence and Wisdom. One big redflag for me as a player, is when a GM drones on about how they wont accept well thoughtout ideas from PCs with low mental stats. The subject of real world smarts is incredibly subjective, most "intelligence tests" show a noticeable bias towards cultural leanings far more than they do toward any sort of mental aptitude. Least the ones I've studied have been shown to. I agree that someone with a six int and six wis probably shouldn't be coming up with a SWAT team style tactical assessment of how to raid a dungeon, but at the same time I'd rather play the damn game than argue over what a character is and isn't allowed to think.
Real world likability is, in my own opinion, even more subjective than mental ability. Traits that make one person charming or interesting to one person make them utterly annoying to another. Traits that one finds endearing in a person will be the things that drive the one person up the wall three months later. Can we accurately depict that in a game? I'm sure it's possible to do a better job than is currently able, but I don't sit down at a game table to play Sitcom the RPG.
At my own table, the attributes are a measure of the mechanical abilities of the character. Intelligence measures what bonuses you get on specific skills as well as how many skills you get, number of languages, and so on...Charisma measures specific skill bonuses and so on...ect ect...nothing more.
Let me guess. Your group are all philosophy and psychology majors.
|
|
Can you provide some examples in action?The character has a low cha score, lets say hes shy and sammers a little (cha 8-9), but since he has diplomacy ranks and its a class skill, hes able to get the guy to answer a few question inspite of an obvious minor hindrance.
Or we can do an above average cha (personal magnetism) and failed the diplomacy roll. This character didnt get the answers he wsnted but my have ended up with a date instead.
Edit: or we could do below average dex eith acrobatic ranks. He can the acrobatics but his 'grace in motion' isnt as good.
Hmm, reminds me of the FFG SW RPG. The dice results can be succsess but soemthing bad happens or fail but something good happens. Makes for interesting situations compared to the often pass/fail set up of most TTRPGs.
When it comes to PF I lean more towards what Fraust posted recently. Personality is generally up to the player and Stats are about as influencial on that as alignment. So far I havent had the situation arise where somebody wants to build a rocket ship with a 5 int so I havent had to stink eye anyone as GM or player. /knock on wood
I'm studying physical anthro, one of us is studying law, one of us is a laborer at a golf course, one was an archaeologist when I met him though I don't actually know what he does for a living now, one works dispatch at a sherif's office, then there's a waiter a guy going to dentistry school, a game store owner and his wife who are both decidedly conservative small town folk as for people who are in the group sporadically. Can't say as I would describe any of them as overly philosophical.
You're idea of old school differs a great deal from mine. The idea that the stats are just numbers on the page comes very much from my experience with older editions of the game. I remember playing Zanzertem's (I know I spelled that all sorts of wrong) dungeon with people who were booby trapping the hell out of rooms based on what they described they're character to be doing, rather than what their characters should have been capable of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see how you and Fraust look at things. I dont agree that ability scores are strickly game mechanics and have no bearing on character looks and personality. I guess I'm old school were ability scores are who and what your character is.
That's one of the problems (or advantages) of the 'new school' though.
In 2E, you either knew something or you didn't. You either had the proficiency or you didn't. If you didn't have the disguise proficiency... you didn't get to do that. Had to find another way. Interestingly, our scores tended to be high enough, that if you had the proficiency it was almost an automatic success and if you didn't it was pretty much a fail.
'Make an Intelligence check' was frequently said. Pathfinder (and I guess 3.x by default) brought the skills into play.
Honestly, I kind of like the idea that I can TRY something without being 'good' at it.
Pathfinder's core book is about 3-4 times bigger then the old Players handbook. They have Really micromanaged the rules down to the point that the DM is almost just another player. In 2E he had to wing a lot of creative decisions and make judgement calls on what kind of checks to make the player roll... now it's all in the books.
Now you don't have to make 'Chr' checks or 'Int' Checks. The only thing I ever see anymore with just a stat mattering, is the Con Check to resist a Coup de grace and the occasional str check to move something heavy.
Int, wis, Chr... they have SSOOOOOOOO many skills, that just about everything is covered by them. They have overlap, they have bonuses and penalties, and they are vague enough that the crazy Venn diagram leaves little left to the imagination.
Here's a question.
What would you make a character use 'just his stat' for, that would NOT be covered by using a skill?
|
|
You can get the play test document now. The full game comes out at the end of summer. Rumor is stats are back to being really important.Jacob, out of curiosity have you looked into 5E at all?is it out for public use?
In my opinion, stats didnt lose their importance, just some groups people believed they were useless since skills covered alot of game mechanics.
Thanks for the info on the up coming release.
|
|
You can get the play test document now. The full game comes out at the end of summer. Rumor is stats are back to being really important.Jacob, out of curiosity have you looked into 5E at all?is it out for public use?In my opinion, stats didnt lose their importance, just some groups people believed they were useless since skills covered alot of game mechanics.
Thanks for the info on the up coming release.
NP. I know where you are coming from now. Not sure why you have been so cagey about it, but to each their own. I think 5E is being laser focused for folks such as yourself. Take care buddy.
|
|
NP. I know where you are coming from now. Not sure why you have been so cagey about it, but to each their own. I think 5E is being laser focused for folks such as yourself. Take care buddy.You can get the play test document now. The full game comes out at the end of summer. Rumor is stats are back to being really important.Jacob, out of curiosity have you looked into 5E at all?is it out for public use?In my opinion, stats didnt lose their importance, just some groups people believed they were useless since skills covered alot of game mechanics.
Thanks for the info on the up coming release.
You as well. Hope you will still join in the 'discussions' on this thread.
Question on perception.
Does Joe Blow the adventurer with a decent perception skill makes a roll and spots something odd, does he automatically know that that something odd is a trap?
Absolutely
That's what the DC's are all about. The DC says how high a character needs to roll to notice something IS a trap... To say 'go ahead and roll,' then add in 'screw you, you don't see it! Bwahahahaha' would be very poor taste.
The die represents 'luck' You have skill and you have luck. if your luck takes you high enough, you can get by without skill. But spotting that trap has a set DC as to how much luck + Skill you need.
|
|
Question on perception.
Does Joe Blow the adventurer with a decent perception skill makes a roll and spots something odd, does he automatically know that that something odd is a trap?
Absolutely
That's what the DC's are all about. The DC says how high a character needs to roll to notice something IS a trap... To say 'go ahead and roll,' then add in 'screw you, you don't see it! Bwahahahaha' would be very poor taste.
The die represents 'luck' You have skill and you have luck. if your luck takes you high enough, you can get by without skill. But spotting that trap has a set DC as to how much luck + Skill you need.
Now I can see why people find trapfinding to be mostly useless.
Personally I'd have made the perception check a 'you notice something odd' and if you had training in finding and dealing with traps, you'd realise what it was.
But thats not how they worded it in PF.
Question on perception.
Does Joe Blow the adventurer with a decent perception skill makes a roll and spots something odd, does he automatically know that that something odd is a trap?
Absolutely
That's what the DC's are all about. The DC says how high a character needs to roll to notice something IS a trap... To say 'go ahead and roll,' then add in 'screw you, you don't see it! Bwahahahaha' would be very poor taste.
The die represents 'luck' You have skill and you have luck. if your luck takes you high enough, you can get by without skill. But spotting that trap has a set DC as to how much luck + Skill you need.
Now I can see why people find trapfinding to be mostly useless.
Personally I'd have made the perception check a 'you notice something odd' and if you had training in finding and dealing with traps, you'd realise what it was.
But thats not how they worded it in PF.
Trapfinding gives a bonus to finding traps (+1/2 rogue level to Perception and Disable Device checks). That bonus may be minimal but it scales alright - at level 5 it's a +2 static bonus on top of skill ranks, class skill and ability mod, and since perception is a class skill for Rogue, you're looking at an easy +12 to perception checks for traps at level 5 (it would be +10 without trapfinding), when traps start getting particularly nasty.
Then there's the other benefit of Trapfinding: rogues being able to disable magical traps.
|
|
I think trapfinding is highly useful, but I also see lots of posters saying that it isnt necessary becuase it doesnt take knowing what a trap looks like (becuase you've actually been trained to spot them) it just takes a high enough percepion roll for anyone to know that its a trap that has just been spotted.
This is how PF works since 'find a hidden trap' is one of the listed DC's under perception.
|
|
Some skills allow a retry like disable device. Others I'm not sure on what allows a retry like say, making a perception check for traps and such or using spell craft with detect magic to identify an item. What needs to change for a retry to be allowed?
The question on perception had come up in my last game session where the rogue missed his check on locating the 'lever' to turn a trap off although everyone was sure it had to be were the rogue was looking. In this instant the GM allowed a retry with the bard playing his inspire competence.
Some skills allow a retry like disable device. Others I'm not sure on what allows a retry like say, making a perception check for traps and such or using spell craft with detect magic to identify an item. What needs to change for a retry to be allowed?
The question on perception had come up in my last game session where the rogue missed his check on locating the 'lever' to turn a trap off although everyone was sure it had to be were the rogue was looking. In this instant the GM allowed a retry with the bard playing his inspire competence.
This one I'm not sure what the 'rules' say.
For the spellcraft/identify, we say you have to wait till the next day to try it again. I'm not sure where that came from, but it sure beats the old 'level up before you can try again' type of things in 2E
As for trap searching? I would go on a case by case scenario. If a player is looking for traps in a random room, Then I probably would NOT allow a reroll... You looked once, and it seemed safe. The fact that THIS room was drawn out on the grid map and is special is 'player knowledge'...
Now.. your example of looking for the lever? I probably WOULD allow it. if there is a reason for the player to actually have a reason to KEEP searching. For example, they found the secret door... There HAS to be a way to open it... If I can't find it... I'd keep looking. It HAS to be here SOMEWHERE....
If I was WARNED there was a trap in the BBEG chest or throne... I'd keep looking. If I follow a dead end in a dungeon that has zero structural reason for BEING there... (because seriously, who builds a hallway to NOwhere....) Then I'd keep looking for the secret door.
But that's all RP. If I'm searching every hall for traps... and THIS section I know I rolled a 2... that's not enough 'character knowledge' to stop and research.
One of the things that I REALLY liked about the World of Darkness game, was that they had a research/searching checks that you rolled a bunch of dice... and needed X number of successes. If you got that in ONE throw of the Dice, then you found it quickly... but every throw cost like a half hour. You could throw the dice as many times as you wanted to research something... and EVENTUALLY you would succeed. But there was a difference of 5 minutes to 5 days!!
Its probably how I'd run retrying the trapfinding/secret doors... Your CERTAIN there is one... but it's going to take another 2o minutes... and if there is a time crunch that may screw them over.
|
|
"Each skill says explicitly in its description whether or not you can try again (and under what circumstance)."
So if every thing is so explicit how do you read this part of Disable Device?
" Try Again
Varies. You can retry checks made to disable traps if you miss the check by 4 or less, though you must be aware that you fail in order to try again. You can retry checks made to open locks."