The rogue is never a good counter argument. They are basically unplayable. The other examples have spells.
Not all roleplaying is rolling skill checks. Hence roleplaying not roll-playing
If you're allowing diplomacy without a diplomacy roll, then you're automatically negating anyone who put points in diplomacy in order to be good at it.
They might as well just have thrown away their skill points because you care not one wit for it, you're allowing everyone to do exactly what that skill was meant for without them having to expend the skill points. So I respond with this.
If I stand up and do a somersault do I not have to put points in acrobatics?
Heck, who needs a character sheet or dice? It's just story time at that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except if you are allowing the fighter to do much influencing with words out of combat, you are now stealing from the Rogue (who already had all his other toys taken away), the bard, and the Inquisitor. Unless the fighter has the stats and skills to make that check, he shouldn't be able to talk his way into places or talk his way out of things, regardless of his "roleplay." In fact, that would make him a WORSE roleplayer because he is NOT roleplaying his stats.The rogue is never a good counter argument. They are basically unplayable. The other examples have spells.
Not all roleplaying is rolling skill checks. Hence roleplaying not roll-playing
That is a weak argument.
Sure, the fighter can role play as a charming prince guy, but the moment you allow him to swoon people over, despite having a 8 Cha and 0 ranks an ANY social skill, then you are stepping on the toes of the people who actually bothered to put ranks into those skills.
Additionally, what if they guy who put ranks into the social skills is not actually a good speaker? Are you going to penalize him because he (irl) has a Cha of 8 when his bard (In game) has a 22? Or are you just allowing it for the guy who rolled a fighter AND can speak well?
The rogue is never a good counter argument. They are basically unplayable. The other examples have spells.
Not all roleplaying is rolling skill checks. Hence roleplaying not roll-playing
If you're allowing diplomacy without a diplomacy roll, then you're automatically negating anyone who put points in diplomacy in order to be good at it.
They might as well just have thrown away their skill points because you care not one wit for it, you're allowing everyone to do exactly what that skill was meant for without them having to expend the skill points. So I respond with this.
If I stand up and do a somersault do I not have to put points in acrobatics?
Diplomacy is used to change a person's attitude towards you with eloquent words, garner assistance from people, and gather information.
IT IS NOT the ability for a player to string words together.
Except if you are allowing the fighter to do much influencing with words out of combat, you are now stealing from the Rogue (who already had all his other toys taken away), the bard, and the Inquisitor. Unless the fighter has the stats and skills to make that check, he shouldn't be able to talk his way into places or talk his way out of things, regardless of his "roleplay." In fact, that would make him a WORSE roleplayer because he is NOT roleplaying his stats.The rogue is never a good counter argument. They are basically unplayable. The other examples have spells.
Not all roleplaying is rolling skill checks. Hence roleplaying not roll-playing
That is a weak argument.
Sure, the fighter can role play as a charming prince guy, but the moment you allow him to swoon people over, despite having a 8 Cha and 0 ranks an ANY social skill, then you are stepping on the toes of the people who actually bothered to put ranks into those skills.
Additionally, what if they guy who put ranks into the social skills is not actually a good speaker? Are you going to penalize him because he (irl) has a Cha of 8 when his bard (In game) has a 22? Or are you just allowing it for the guy who rolled a fighter AND can speak well?
I can't argue your counter points because they are directed at stances I never took.
In out parties the signal is when the Rogue makes the sound of a dying giraffe. . .I rarely see a monster more than a round before initiative is rolled.That's what you get for not having a scout. I'd recommend getting a Rogue for that as they do it so well, and then you and the rest of your party can sit back and wait for the signal.
The signal is a blood-curdling scream followed by an abrupt silence.
In our parties the signal is the rogue zipping past heading the way out and saying "run!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Diplomacy is used to change a person's attitude towards you with eloquent words, garner assistance from people, and gather information.
IT IS NOT the ability for a player to string words together.
So, asking for something, making people friendlier, and asking for information. What else are you hoping to accomplish outside of combat with your roleplay?
Scare them? Intimidate.
Lie? Bluff.
Tell if they're lying? Sense motive.
Or better yet, what do you think you can accomplish without them?
I try talking. It's amazing what you can accomplish just by informing the uninformed details of the situation they might not know. One is example is basically everything Tywin Lannister does. And no, if he had decent social skills SPOILER wouldn't have happened.
*Also: Are there fighters who don't take intimidating prowess?
Diplomacy is used to change a person's attitude towards you with eloquent words, garner assistance from people, and gather information.
IT IS NOT the ability for a player to string words together.
So, asking for something, making people friendlier, and asking for information. What else are you hoping to accomplish outside of combat with your roleplay?
Scare them? Intimidate.
Lie? Bluff.
Tell if they're lying? Sense motive.
Or better yet, what do you think you can accomplish without them?
I try talking. It's amazing what you can accomplish just by informing the uninformed details of the situation they might not know. One is example is basically everything Tywin Lannister does. And no, if he had decent social skills SPOILER wouldn't have happened.
*Also: Are there fighters who don't take intimidating prowess?
This...
I find that not everything has to be (or even is) communicated through a roll of the dice.Need info but CHA is your dump stat?
Well for one: why do you even have a dump stat? (seriously I cannot fathom this mind set... explain it to me).
And for two: Asking around for rumors and general information is not the sole bailiwick of any one class.
You say you do not have the points in the skills?
No problem. Those skills are for making it easier to get the info not an "I win button" for information gathering.
And you assume that telling people additional information will always get you waht you want. Even spinning it in a way that helps you is 1 of the 3 involved.
It's not like a fighter has to talk his way through everything. That is what the pointy stick is for after all.
The idea that characters can't speak without dice rolls is the illusion being dispelled here.
Skills are for when you need to do the mechanics described in the skills. They do not encompass all forms of speaking.
You say you do not have the points in the skills?
No problem. Those skills are for making it easier to get the info not an "I win button" for information gathering.If you get to ask for it without them then guess what you've invalidated someone who did bother to put points in.
And you assume that telling people additional information will always get you waht you want. Even spinning it in a way that helps you is 1 of the 3 involved.
Personally, I find invalidating someone's choice of skill points a lot easier to stomach than using "because rules" to tell someone why they're magically unable to speak certain words.
However, the key word there is "personally". It's a decision for individual groups and/or GMs to make, depending on their style of play. It's not a decision for anyone to declare as being the right or wrong way to play.
And you assume that telling people additional information will always get you waht you want. Even spinning it in a way that helps you is 1 of the 3 involved.It's not like a fighter has to talk his way through everything. That is what the pointy stick is for after all.
The idea that characters can't speak without dice rolls is the illusion being dispelled here.
Skills are for when you need to do the mechanics described in the skills. They do not encompass all forms of speaking.
What I see here is confusion as to just what the word ROLE stands for in ROLE-playing game.
One side sees it as dividing the work load of the party: Tank, DPR, Face, Healing, utility, etc...
The other side sees it as assuming the personality of the character.
Of the two I much prefer the latter. The Former feels too much like a board game to me. (That is not to say the other side is having badwrongfun just not my kind of fun).
|
Diplomacy is used to change a person's attitude towards you with eloquent words, garner assistance from people, and gather information.
IT IS NOT the ability for a player to string words together.
So, asking for something, making people friendlier, and asking for information. What else are you hoping to accomplish outside of combat with your roleplay?
Scare them? Intimidate.
Lie? Bluff.
Tell if they're lying? Sense motive.
Or better yet, what do you think you can accomplish without them?
One of the reasons I'm not a fan of 3.x/PF, actual roleplaying has largely been replaced by / reduced to skill checks.
But what about a person who is naturally a bad speaker? Or a person that couldn't talk there way out of a paperbag? What then? Are they now forever precluded from playing the FoP? So, if you don't naturally have a high Cha in real life are you not allowed to play Cha-skill based characters? Where do you draw the line then?
But what about a person who is naturally a bad speaker? Or a person that couldn't talk there way out of a paperbag? What then? Are they now forever precluded from playing the FoP? So, if you don't naturally have a high Cha in real life are you not allowed to play Cha-skill based characters? Where do you draw the line then?
No they can play Cha based character but I would encourage them to be more descriptive than "I use diplomacy, I intimidate him, I sense motive to see if he is lying."
How does one do that?Simple really.
The GM can grant a situational modifier of -5 to +5 (Yeah, yeah the book says -2 to +2). The size of the Mod would be dependent on the attempt made.
The quality of the attempt may also affect the size the bonus (I do not hold the new, shy, nervous, tongue-tied, introvert player to the same standard as the veteran, quick witted, glib, fast talking, extrovert player).
Quick Edit: I rarely ever apply the negatives typically its a 0 to +5 situational modifier.
But what about a person who is naturally a bad speaker? Or a person that couldn't talk there way out of a paperbag? What then? Are they now forever precluded from playing the FoP? So, if you don't naturally have a high Cha in real life are you not allowed to play Cha-skill based characters? Where do you draw the line then?
They play up their skills.
"I attempt to make them more friendly." *rolls diplomacy check
"These are not the droids you are looking for." *rolls bluff check
"I scare them by saying: BOOO!" rolls intimidate check
While fighter can go
"I show them our signed commission from the king."
"I put a tarp over the droids, since the troopers aren't doing more than a visual search."
"GREAT CLEAVE! now they're dead."
One way to deal with people who like to do a lot of the talking in social situations without devoting any skill ranks to social skills is to rule that whoever is talking is the one who has to make a Diplomacy roll. When one DM started forcing me to roll I quickly realized that I needed to max out those ranks.
In another game we've got a PC with a Charisma of 6 and no ranks in Diplomacy who frequently talks over my Diplomacy +28 PC. I guess it might kind of suck if the DM forced him to roll since we'd fail in almost every social situation. Then again, maybe the player would either put in some ranks or sit back and let me do my thing more often. On the other hand, his PC has very high Sense Motive whereas mine is just OK, so it isn't like he'd have to sit out the social encounters entirely. We'd each have our role.
Incidentally, the 6 Cha guy beats almost every kind of DR since he has a +3 weapon and Greater Bane. He and another PC have high initiative modifiers and always acts in the surprise round, so it isn't unusual for them to kill all the monsters before I make even a single attack. It has actually become kind of a joke where I raise my arm like I'm about to strike with a sword and then just shrug and say something like, "Very well, let's collect treasure". My PC isn't terrible in combat. He just rarely gets a chance to participate much unless something can survive for 2-3 rounds. If the DM made the monsters tougher to kill it would actually be a fun change for me.
