I just provided you the example of the Hag, a creature with high charisma that is notably hideous
The game disagrees entirely with your assessment.
Employing UMD and any other skill or game mechanic resolves the issue. People can role play how they want, and when a specific situation arises the rules bat last.
I think you're missing my point. Unless you reduce social interaction/roleplaying to the sum of skills keyed to the Charisma ability, then you're in essence saying there's no obligation to you roleplaying your character as if his Charisma score was irrelevant. In turn, logic follows, if the GM role-plays his NPCs as if your character's notions of his force of personality were absurd in any situation that isn't governed by dice rolls ("Who does this oafish blowhard think he is?"), then he's being bad.
The GM, using rules which take into account many factors is doing their job. Great. Making things up and arbitrarily forcing a certain style from others is not playing nice.
Agreed.
remember that 7th stat ADnD used to have, comeliness... yeah neither does anyone else, leave appearance out of the stats please.
Seems the devs thought charisma affected looks.Show me where it says "physical appearance"."Charisma measures ... and appearance." CRB p17
It obviously plays some part in monster stats, which is why beautiful creatures like Nymphs and Succubi have very high charisma scores.
In fact, there are many, many more references to positive and negative ability modifiers, and how they translate to characters being being frail as opposed to tough, unpleasant to be around as opposed to naturally agreeable, etc. For this, see almost every instance of Racial ability modifiers in the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Race Guide.
And yet there are examples of creatures in the bestiary with high charisma who also happen to be high on the "definitely would not bang" list.
Examples that seem to be getting ignored because it is convenient for your argument.
And Charisma would be about that... if not for the fact that it doesn't. And yes, you appear. But you aren't, necessarily.
The problem is, the Charisma ability rules how you are. Skills such as Disguise, etc., rule how well you can downplay how you are, overcome the limitations of how you are, etc.
It's funny how you lump those pointing out the rules as ignoring them.
The two are not mutually exclusive in your argument, though. You've pointed out the rules, but choose to focus on a specific aspect of them (which is your prerogative).
On the other hand, you're quite comfortable with ignoring how abilities translate to what your character is. A high-Strength character is strong. A low-Strength character is weak. An average dwarf possesses natural potential that makes them tougher than the average human. A dwarf that is more frail than the average human despite that potential is the exception. That's not opinion; that's the default state of the game.
Sigh...
What do you say to the Hag, Khrysaor? Do you find this creature attractive? Does that succulent, 19 charisma monster make your heart aflutter?
I mean, if it does, that's cool if that's what you're into. But I'm not and I think most would agree with me.
Employing UMD and any other skill or game mechanic resolves the issue. People can role play how they want, and when a specific situation arises the rules bat last.I think you're missing my point. Unless you reduce social interaction/roleplaying to the sum of skills keyed to the Charisma ability, then you're in essence saying there's no obligation to you roleplaying your character as if his Charisma score was irrelevant. In turn, logic follows, if the GM role-plays his NPCs as if your character's notions of his force of personality were absurd in any situation that isn't governed by dice rolls ("Who does this oafish blowhard think he is?"), then he's being bad.
I'm not missing your point, just showing how the raw Charisma score is merely the beginning and one of many factors in social interaction situations. As per your example, if a guy were trying to pretend he has a great Bluff skill and went around offering advice like he was Dalai Lama or Dear Abby when in fact the aggregate of Charisma score plus ranks in Bluff did not bear that out, than yes the GM would be justified, would be doing his job, by having NPCs reacting in horror or anger.
It's funny how you lump those pointing out the rules as ignoring them.The two are not mutually exclusive in your argument, though. You've pointed out the rules, but choose to focus on a specific aspect of them (which is your prerogative).
On the other hand, you're quite comfortable with ignoring how abilities translate to what your character is. A high-Strength character is strong. A low-Strength character is weak. An average dwarf possesses natural potential that makes them tougher than the average human. A dwarf that is more frail than the average human despite that potential is the exception. That's not opinion; that's the default state of the game.
You are the one ignoring the rules of the game which over-ride the measly -2 Charisma I've been talking about with class skill bonus. The initial Charisma score has consequences- I've never said it didn't. Yet the difference here can be miniscule and is context dependent. A Dex 20 Wizard at level 1 is going to act like a klutz compared to a tenth level Dex 10, or even Dex 7, guy, with ranks in Acrobatics. I'm not ignoring rules but on the contrary putting them all in.
What I'm 'ignoring,' or more precisely pointing out, is your false assumption that starting attribute rolls are uber alles. I wouldn't care except for based on that faulty foundation you presume that you get to tell others how to role play
The Disguise skill changes your Charisma? News to me.
We may disagree, but at least address my posts in good faith.
Appearance can be changed. An average/less pretty person can be made more beautiful by applying makeup and wearing good clothes. A beautiful person can be made less beautiful by just having a bad day or wearing s*#+ty clothes.
People can have good appearance and still be not very pretty. There's makeup for that.
And yes, you appear. But you aren't, necessarily.
To sum up: "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
The Charisma ability score determines how great your character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical appearance are. Your Charisma 18 character can, nonetheless, use any number of skills or abilities to downplay those qualities. For instance, he could run around in circles spitting at people and refuse to offer any coherent explanation as to his behavior. Or he could use the Disguise skill to make himself look like a diseased beggar and could use the Bluff skill to purposefully affect a demeanor that makes him loathsome in the eyes of others.
None of this would change the fact that he has a Charisma 18, and that the default game rules indicate that this means he naturally possesses a very compelling personality, inherently draws people to him, is a natural leader, and has a striking appearance (perhaps it's his resolute look, or maybe he affects that idealistic "tilt" to his neck that Alexander's Successors tried to emulate). Your high Charisma is how you are unless you choose to suppress it.
By contrast, unless you use magical items or spells specifically aimed at raising the Charisma score, there's no skill, mundane item, or other mechanic (that I know of) that allows you to achieve that increase. A low-Charisma character who doesn't have access to Eagle's Splendor, etc., will continue to have a low Charisma. Your low Charisma is how you are unless you find a way to raise it.
Lets say within the same party there is a Fighter with 7 cha and a Paladin with 16 cha.
They both maintain their armor in the same way, so we don't have the 'shining armor paladin' contrasting with grungy armor on the fighter.
As GM I treat these two characters 100% identically until its time to roll the dice. People who don't know about their profession treat them the same.
Same service, same respect (for protecting us) or hatred (for being soldiers and thus keeping this war going that's keeping us hungry), same everything.
If neither tries explicitly to influence anybody they are dealing with and have only casual conversations, there is zero difference (unless there's a spellcaster hidden somewhere secretly casting spells at them, in which case the Paladin will probably pass them while the Fighter will probably fail.)
Where we disagree is that I believe casual conversations can, indeed, indicate to someone what kind of personality, magnetism, etc., a character can have. It would be situationally dependent, and the GM would be the final arbiter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... in social interaction situations.
Brass tacks: do all social interaction situations in Pathfinder fall within the range of the skills keyed to Charisma?
You are the one ignoring the rules of the game which over-ride the measly -2 Charisma I've been talking about with class skill bonus.
I'm not; I'm pointing out that those skills simply make up for shortcomings in an ability. So, for instance:
A Dex 20 Wizard at level 1 is going to act like a klutz compared to a tenth level Dex 10, or even Dex 7, guy, with ranks in Acrobatics. I'm not ignoring rules but on the contrary putting them all in.
Here is where we differ. That Wizard is absolutely more dextrous than that Rogue. That Rogue, on the other hand, is incredibly more acrobatic than that Wizard - thanks to his training. As a GM, I would point out that the Rogue's tumbling movements are by no means crisp or fluid, but that he clearly knows what he's doing. If I'm describing an NPC, I might describe some sort of defect that contributes to this and makes his career as an acrobatic Rogue more plausible than "just because" - such as his tumbling being stiff or somewhat awkward due to a trick knick.
Either way, I would convey the difference between the sheer skill one character exhibits and the natural agility of the other.
What I'm 'ignoring,' or more precisely pointing out, is your false assumption that starting attribute rolls are uber alles. I wouldn't care except for based on that faulty foundation you presume that you get to tell others how to role play
This is the second time I've had to ask you to not put words in my mouth.
First, I have never said ability scores trump everything. I have consistently stated that skill and experience can mitigate low scores. I have merely questioned whether skills cover ALL social situations - and if they don't (which I don't believe they do), then how can one argue that a low ability score shouldn't be role-played?
Second, I have never told anyone else how they should role-play.
You and I can continue to debate any number of things, EpicFail. Stop putting words in mouth, though. There's no reason for it, and it's becoming irritating.
@ Khrysaor
Like I said, ignored (or rather, totally disregarded). *sigh*The Charisma ability score determines how great your character's (...) physical appearance are.You guys keep adding that "physical" like it's your job. There's no "physical" in there. It doesn't belong there. "Physical appearance" might be a part of "Appearance" (at least by some definitions, and only parts of those definitions interpreted a certain way), yes, but it doesn't make it interchangeable, like some people here are arguing.
Appearance is how you appear. I'm not making value judgments about beauty, ugliness, or whatever. It's why I qualified as much later on in my post.
If you genuinely don't believe "appearance" in any way intersects with physical appearance, that's fine. I really don't care, because in my own game I see Charisma as personality, bearing, magnetism, etc., and appearance as whatever the player decides - since there is no mechanic for it. Even so, though, you genuinely got nothing out of said post other than that technicality? Nothing about how Charisma is what you are, and that while you can "turn it off" easily to appear less charismatic you can't exactly "raise it" without magic (again, excluding social interactions that are specifically addressed by a skill)?
Where we disagree is how I feel that one's personality would show through casual conversation, but until that character tried to influence someone else, it wouldn't matter.Being yourself is being yourself, it's when you go out of your way to try to sway someone to your side, or deceive them, or something like that that cha comes into play.
If I'm just hanging out and sharing a meal it doesn't matter whether my cha is 5 or 25
You are correct, this is where we disagree. I believe that high Charisma absolutely does impact casual interaction. Unless you choose to downplay your high Charisma, for whatever reason, your character's desired flavor of "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" will have a greater (positive) impact with those you interact with than if you had low Charisma.
In my game, I would ensure that, during those casual encounters/interactions, NPCs interacted with your character in a way that befitted his Charisma and the way you express it. If he's a high Charisma character who is being silent and wishes to be alone, they might respectfully give him his space. If he's a low Charisma character who tries to order around the burly barkeep, though, his response might be to tell him to sod off and find some other place to drink at. ;)
See, if I were GMing the Barkeep would probably tell ANYBODY to sod off if someone tried ordering him around, and NPC's would respectfully give people space or be annoying and try to drag the silent person into the conversation based on their own personalities and tendencies, irrespective of the individual's Cha.
You are free to House Rule your game's interactions as you see fit. :)
You are the one ignoring the rules of the game which over-ride the measly -2 Charisma I've been talking about with class skill bonus.I'm not; I'm pointing out that those skills simply make up for shortcomings in an ability...
That's my point- look how easy the -2 in this case is to overcome. Again the attribute score is but one factor. The supposed gap from the starting number is pretty fragile.
[quote = "epicfail"]
What I'm 'ignoring,' or more precisely pointing out, is your false assumption that starting attribute rolls are uber alles. I wouldn't care except for based on that faulty foundation you presume that you get to tell others how to role play
[quote = "Phoebus Alexanrus"]This is the second time I've had to ask you to not put words in my mouth.
First, I have never said ability scores trump everything. I have consistently stated that skill and experience can mitigate low scores. I have merely questioned whether skills cover ALL social situations - and if they don't (which I don't believe they do), then how can one argue that a low ability score shouldn't be role-played?
Second, I have never told anyone else how they should role-play.
You and I can continue to debate any number of things, EpicFail. Stop putting words in mouth, though....
You poor thing- you say don't tell anyone how to roleplay, yet insist:
then how can one argue that a low ability score shouldn't be role-played?
and that after graciously allowing characters with a high score need not role play however. At least won up to your own ideas. Of course it's not irritating to accuse me of "ignoring rules" when that's flat out untrue.
[edit = pardon the botched quotes, pls.]
You can't argue using a character that invests skills into something vs. one that doesn't and say that makes up for it. This is like saying a 3/4 BAB class is better at combat than full BAB if they invest in all combat feats while the full BAB takes all skill focus.No, it's like saying a 10th level Bard with a 10 Str will be better at combat than a 1st level Fighter with an 18 Str. Which is pretty true actually.
Years back, one of my players was running a cowardly aristocrat that got up to quite high levels.
He disdained fighting of course, but I did tell him after he got to about level 13, that he would have no problem killing typical soldiers. It is the champions that would give him a rough day, the specialists. With this great kit, bab and quite a lot of hp thanks to level and good health, he could kill about over half a dozen trained guardsmen if he had to hold a door. A level 1 fighter just doesn't have the 50+ hp to rely upon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cha7 with 1 skill in a class skill vs Cha10 with no skill ranks was the initial comparison. Straw men don't add much.
It is not a straw man when one is clearly better in a comparison.
Arguments you don't like aren't immediately fallacies.
... in social interaction situations.Brass tacks: do all social interaction situations in Pathfinder fall within the range of the skills keyed to Charisma?
Yes!
... in social interaction situations.Brass tacks: do all social interaction situations in Pathfinder fall within the range of the skills keyed to Charisma?
Nearly all interaction can be reflected in skills, and even that high number goes up when a particularly important interaction is to be resolved. Before the introduction of skills, however many editions ago, the way social questions were resolved were either sheer force of a given player's will in real life or a high Charisma score. Now with Intimidate, Bluff, et al we can develop our guys all kinds of ways.
@ Khrysaor
Like I said, ignored (or rather, totally disregarded). *sigh*The Charisma ability score determines how great your character's (...) physical appearance are.You guys keep adding that "physical" like it's your job. There's no "physical" in there. It doesn't belong there. "Physical appearance" might be a part of "Appearance" (at least by some definitions, and only parts of those definitions interpreted a certain way), yes, but it doesn't make it interchangeable, like some people here are arguing.
The sorceress hideously scarred by acid in too many spell duels, still has the immense force of charisma and personal power to draw spells from her very soul and unleash them outwards. She can also easily take charge in social situations and get her way, scars or no.
Appearance is entirely fluff.