Why do I have 7 charisma?
Because the system constrained me and the only way my character would be able to do its job is if I chose a stat to dump. Because I am a martial and therefor Multi-Stat-Dependant I had to dump something. Meanwhile other classes in the game can say "who needs all those stats? I got the PB to spare and make my character fabulous!"
The system itself already punished me by forcing me to do that and sacrifice ever being good at cha based checks and skills, so I don't need the DM punishing me further by telling me I can't role play my character because I don't have the charisma to be a loveable hero.
edit: Most campaigns in my area are 20 pb and often players dump a stat to 7 because they need those points. I started doing games at 24 pb and don't give additional points for dumping. It makes no sense to me that social and physical stats share the same point buy anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We're just not going to agree on this.Indeed, we're not going to agree on it. I'm a firm believe in roleplaying your character, not the stats.
And I'm a firm believer that one's character sheet should reflect their character concept. If your character concept is the crafty, charming, and worldly barbarian and you have a low INT, CHA, and WIS I'm going to raise an eyebrow at you, and we're going to have a discussion about your character concept and how it could maybe be improved.
If *I* were playing a crafty, charming, and worldly barbarian I would have a high (or at least higher than normal) INT, CHA, and WIS, even if it makes me less effective at beating people with an axe. My concept is such that I necessarily need to be less good at beating people with an axe in order to make it work, as certain character concepts simply do not work with optimized builds, at least from my perspective. If I rolled up a low INT/CHA/WIS character and told the GM that my character is crafty, charming, and worldly then I would expect the GM to raise an objection. Specific example, the last character I rolled up was a monk with a strength of 10, because her concept was such that she's a 95 lbs, homeless, half-starved waif who is a vegetarian that's been living in the woods for the past 3 years because she's terrified of people,and I couldn't justify a high strength with that concept (Charisma of 14 though, since she's beautiful, she just has the personal presence of a mayfly.)
But we can drop this line of argument, since I think it's an irreconcilable ontological disagreement.
I didn't realize Leonidas/Askeladd/Spartakus/Bucky/JoJo or any media iconic "martial" dumped mental stats to be as good as they were at fightan.
If they system itself doesn't want me to play a character like that then the only recourse is to reinterpret the system in a way that does work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Specific example, the last character I rolled up was a monk with a strength of 10, because her concept was such that she's a 95 lbs, homeless, half-starved waif who is a vegetarian that's been living in the woods for the past 3 years because she's terrified of people,and I couldn't justify a high strength with that conceptMind over matter
Child-of-nature-wiry-muscle-syndrome
Pintsized Powerhouse
But I didn't want to play that type of character, I wanted "frail, skittish, and physically weak and unimposing" to be aspects of the character. It was a 25 PB, Changeling Zen Archer, I went STR 10, 14 DEX, 12 (14-2) CON, 18 (16+2) WIS, 13 INT, and 14 (12+2) CHA. I don't care if it's suboptimal, this was the stat line that reflected how I wanted that character to be.
Doesn't really even use Charisma for anything, and I even took the Anxious drawback because it fit, so I wasn't really going to be using Diplomacy for anything
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A set of triplets walk into a bar. They all look identical and have the same number of skill ranks in Diplomacy, but one has a Cha of 7, one has a Cha of 14, and one has a Cha of 50. Lets say, for the sake of example, they're also hot blonde bombshells. So three hot blonde triplets walk into a bar, each with a different Charisma score. All eyes go to Cha_50. She walks the walk and talks the talk.
Cha_7 walks up to the barkeep and says, "Can you tell me anything about that shady guy sitting in the corner?" The barkeep doesn't really know her and is kind of suspicious of her motives. His subconscious picks up on her lack of confidence from the tone of her words and her body language, though it doesn't let his conscious mind in on the details; just the conclusion: this person isn't particularly convincing. So, his response is, "You want a drink or something? Don't worry about my other customers."
Cha_14 walks up to the barkeep and says, "Can yout ell me anything about that shady guy sitting in the corner?" The barkeep doesn't really know her, but she seems normal enough. Sometimes people ask about others in a tavern and rumors are a good source of tips. His subconscious picks up that she's the average, run-of-the-mill adventurer type and it may be worth a coin to share a small tidbit of info, though it doesn't let his conscious mind in on the details; just the conclusion: this person is worth a little rumor if the price is right. So his response is, "That depends on who's askin' and what they're orderin'."
Cha_50 walks up to the barkeep and says, "Can you tell me anything about that shady guy sitting in the corner?" The barkeep doesn't really care if he knows her or not because this right here is a 10/10 BABE. His subconscious is telling his conscious, "YES!!! Tell her EVERYTHING... you're SO getting laid!" So his response is, "Oh him? Yeah, he's kind of a big-shot thug here in town with mob connections. You want to ask him a question? Wanna shake him down? I'll have my bouncers...
And now I know the reason people think we gamers have no comprehension of how social interaction actually works.
No wonder you hate dumping stats! You play at 25 point buy! At that point even I could afford a 10 charisma on a Barbarian!
No wonder you hate dumping stats! You play at 25 point buy! At that point even I could afford a 10 charisma on a Barbarian!
Everybody in my group likes high stats. So 25 PB is generally the lowest anybody will go, though it varies by who's GMing. No one ever dumps CHA either, since we RP the heck out of our Charisma scores.
On a 25 point buy, before racials.
16 str
14 dex
14 con
10 int
14 wis
10 cha
A statline that would make any martial happy and that's superior to a 20 pb with charisma dumped to 7.
If I wanted to start with 15 str I could up con to 15 too and by level 8 have both be 16 naturally.
On a 15 or 20 pb a player pretty much has to dump, but if the GM tells me not to dump, guess who gets the least nerfed? Sorc, Wizard, Cleric, Oracle, Druid, Magus, Inquisitor, Bards, ect.
Someone who plays a lot at higher point buys would have a more skewed view at just how bad the point buy system is for making a viable character who fits your image.
If a character has at least 18 base strength by level 4 they are actually right on target for hitting enemies of CR+/-4 APL.
Let us use Barbarian as the example because it's honestly one of the few martials that has viability.
Level 4 str 18 base power attack for -2/+6 a +1 weapon
4 BAB+ 4 STR+ + 2 Rage str + 1 Magic weapon -2 power attack= 9 attack bonus by yourself. That's decently impressive and assuming the group has any sort of buffing class, such as the ever popular Bard the modifier jumps higher! This is also before getting better weapons, improved rage, str belt, ect
Average ACs by CR and d20 roll to hit unbuffed with a +9
4: 17- hit on a 8
5: 18 hit on 9
6: 19 hit on 10
7: 20 hit on 11
8: 21 hit on 12
For the most part average AC goes up by one per CR, in other words full BAB goes up at about the same pace (not counting PA).
These are the numbers and their interpretation is up to you. Here's the spreadsheet with statistics based on CR that I use. link It needs to be viewed in excel for me to see it properly.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Want to know how to punish a character with 7 Charisma? Give him a -2 ability score penalty to social-based rolls, such as Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate, and apply the same penalty on ability score checks to control called or charmed creatures.
If it's a 5 Charisma, make it a -3 penalty.
If it's a 3 Charisma, make it a -4, just to be mean and nasty to them.
I really, REALLY have a hard time taking less than a 17 in Strength for a martial. If I'm not at +6 Strength (18+2 Racial+2 enhancement) by level 5 it's just not cutting it.
Personally, I would never do that. That just smacks of excessive min-maxing to me. But to each their own. I never take anything over a 16 in a PB build, even for a SAD class. All stats are useful, after all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Want to know how to punish a character with 7 Charisma? Give him a -2 ability score penalty to social-based rolls, such as Bluff, Diplomacy, and Intimidate, and apply the same penalty on ability score checks to control called or charmed creatures.
If it's a 5 Charisma, make it a -3 penalty.
If it's a 3 Charisma, make it a -4, just to be mean and nasty to them.
If questions asked here worked the way I'd like them to, rather than in messageboard discussion format, we could just all vote this answer up to appear directly under the question, and save future people opening this thread a whole lot of reading :)
Heh, to each his own P.C. When I'm GMing one array I like to hand out to my players is 18, 16, 14, 14, 12, 10. It's a really heavy P.B. but it works out about how I want it to in play.
And here I've been happy with my 15 PB Paladins and Rangers. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Define 'hitting' for me please?
There's a reason I hate the d20, and that's because it's such a gigantic RNG that reasonable modifiers get lost in the chaos.
+4 Strength+4BAB+1 Masterworked is only +9 vs an average AC of CR 4 creatures of 17. That's missing roughly 40% of the time (30% if flanking or charging) and it only gets worse with higher CR creatures.
@ Jiggy: Myth?
I find it a touch macabre that players who claim to enjoy combat most in the game optimize to end combats quickly.
In terms of that.
What's the functional difference between a Charisma 5 character with 3 ranks in diplo/bluff/intimidate and a charisma 10 character with no ranks in said skils?
There are two player groups I know of in terms of how they consider stats/skills and how they make up a character.
Group one: Your Base stats are how the world sees you and how they respond to you.
ex: Low charisma- ugly, or low presence.Group two: Your base stats are simply your aptitude for learning and the way the world sees you and responds to you is based on your skills (which are helped or hindered by your aptitude)
ex: low charisma: Is not as good at talking to people as he could be, but by perseverance and working on his faults he can become good at it.I subscribe to group 2 because Pathfinder relies on stats heavily for combat purposes and it's my belief that the stats used for combat and for out of combat should draw from separate pools. With Method one someone who is a physical beast cannot ever be someone capable of speaking well, leading others, or coming up with ideas.
Except no amount of skill will make someone able to lift more weight (strength) so there is some basis for characters being judged by their ability scores. Yes, they determine aptitude but it's not that cut and dry as with my example for strength shows.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it a touch macabre that players who claim to enjoy combat most in the game optimize to end combats quickly.Define 'hitting' for me please?
There's a reason I hate the d20, and that's because it's such a gigantic RNG that reasonable modifiers get lost in the chaos.
+4 Strength+4BAB+1 Masterworked is only +9 vs an average AC of CR 4 creatures of 17. That's missing roughly 40% of the time (30% if flanking or charging) and it only gets worse with higher CR creatures.
@ Jiggy: Myth?
Well, if you're not shelling out some serious damage at high levels you're going to get overrun. NPC HP goes up really quick, and the Pathfinder encounter-building system encourages you to play in big dynamic battles that have lots of enemies in them.
For example, if you're a level 12 party, a APL+2 encounter can comfortably include 1 CR 12 enemy and 8 CR 5 subordinates/supporters. Now at CR 5, you end up seeing opponents that look like this:
air elemental (large), army ant swarm, basidirond, basilisk, bearded devil, cloaker, cyclops, dire lion, djinni, earth elemental (large), fire elemental (large), giant frilled lizard, giant moray eel, gibbering mouther, green hag, half-celestial unicorn, ice golem, manticore, mummy, nightmare, ochre jelly, orca, phase spider, troll, water elemental (large), winter wolf, wraith
Most of these enemies have around 50-70 HP a piece. The CR 12 enemy probably has between 120-200 HP. That's a total of 520-760 HP worth of enemies to carve through, many of which might be moving about and/or doing things that are twisting the battle in their favor.
As a result, for a martial character to be able to contribute to her role very effectively she needs to be able to wreck at least one of those little guys in short order, and be able to withstand their advances. For example, a pack of 8 winter wolves + 1 lich would be a pretty solid CR 14 encounter. They have mobility and tactics on their side. A pack of hasted winter wolves get 2 attacks per round at +11, and they have a combined total of 48d6 worth of cold damage that they can deal with their breath weapons, which their entire team is immune to, as well as any skeletal minions the lich is controlling that have been paid for out of his WBL (21,000 gp).
This is where the team play goes in, and why I enjoy Rangers, Paladins, and Barbarians. Rangers can easily immunize themselves to the cold damage with a simple resist energy (resist 20) and likely will avoid large amounts of said damage due to Evasion, Paladins will shrug the damage and will make all their saves (and be immune to the lich's fear and grant his buddies saves vs fear), and Barbarians will have huge defenses vs the enemy team and thanks to pounce can probably drop at least one enemy per round. Spellcasters can focus on interrupting, CC'ing, dispelling, and sweeping the field (casting spells like holy word and cloudkill).
Wondering how to treat that 5 CHA? I personally believe the best place to start with any conundrum is looking at facts! :D
Let's start with this:
Basic NPCs: The ability scores for a basic NPC are: 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, and 8.
Heroic NPCs: The ability scores for a heroic NPC are: 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, and 8.
The game world assumes that most of the people populating the game world have "basic NPC" stats (that's for everyone with NPC-class levels, from commoner to aristocrat), while the exceptional ones (those with PC-class levels) have the "heroic NPC" stats.
So this defines "normal" in Pathfinder.
Or it is simply an inconsistency driven by a game mechanic. In this case, we're talking about using a point buy system and assigning points to attributes for the purpose of generating throwaway NPCs. It's not as if every melee combatant in Golarion has a Charisma ability score of 8.
What about if my charactaer has an exceptionally high CHA? Am I expected to somehow roleplay at that level as well? What if I am personally a jerk (which I'm certain some people would agree with)? How can you expect me to suddenly roleplay an 18 CHA character? Isn't that what the dice do, to an extent?
To an extent, yeah.
I would offer that it's every player's responsibility to approach the game in good faith and within their abilities. I don't think you're a jerk, but let's say you're more of an introvert and don't feel like being under the spotlight. I don't think you should be required to give a lofty speech, but would the GM be out of line if he asks you to at least describe what you're doing? Personally, I don't think so. When you remove even that level of interaction I'd argue that you're reducing the game to a very low-tech version of an MMORPG.
Until a check is rolled, NOBODY knows how charismatic you are, and depending on the roll they may believe you are more or less charismatic than you actually are.
Rolling a 15 with a cha of 7 produces the EXACT SAME RESULT as rolling a 10 with a cha of 14
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."
The lower the ability, the lesser the character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and (as much as I hate the conflation of personality and looks) appearance.
I think it's important to differentiate between someone who possesses that innate "force of personality" and a person who has studied long and hard the art of (e.g.) public speaking, negotiations, etc.
Let's pretend we have two characters trying to use the Diplomacy skill to sway an Indifferent individual (DC 15). No situational modifiers apply. One character has a Charisma score of 18, but is untrained in Diplomacy and rolls a 12 (for a total score of 16). The other has a Charisma score of 7, but has invested 6 points in Diplomacy and rolls a 12 (total score of 16). Both characters have succeeded in changing the target's attitude from Indifferent to Friendly. They didn't achieve their result the same way, though.
So again, unless you want to remove the element of roleplaying/describing what you are doing from the game, then there's a conceptual difference between the two characters. Character One put forth a pretty good argument, but it was really his personality that got the job done. Character Two also put forth a pretty good argument, but it was his skill at interaction and persuasion that led him to succeed. More to the point, his skill helped him overcome the shortcomings of his personality - which translate into a penalty.
How do you describe the two characters? They're not the same. One is undoubtedly charismatic - enough to overcome his lack of any training in diplomacy whatsover. The other may be academic to the point of being condescending, but his logic cannot be ignored. Those are just examples, but the bottom line is that while the two might have been equally effective, they are not equally charismatic.
Why do I have 7 charisma?
Because (in this example) as a player you made a conscious choice to base your character concept on game mechanic-driven optimization than some other alternative.
I hate to sound rude, but that's really what it comes down to. You can assume that spending your points on Strength, Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom, and dumping Charisma and/or Intelligence is the only viable course of action. Personally, I think the game is too random and situational to argue that the extra four points (essentially a +2 bonus if you manage to put all four points to one other attribute) you'd get from dumping Charisma to 8 are worth pigeonholing your character.
Or, you could ignore that paradigm altogether. Simply go for a concept that strikes you as fun and/or challenging*. Generate sickly Alexandros from "Gates of Fire". His particularly bad asthma might translate to a Constitution score of 8, and he had to overcome it with sheer guts, willpower, skill, and good armor. His Charisma, on the other hand, was evident. Or maybe you don't stat-dump at all. Maybe you went with a 15, 14, 12, 12, 12, 12 array, bumped your Strength to 17, and called your character a Fighter whose family insisted on him being a well-rounded, well-studied young boy.
Incidentally, I doubt Leonidas (since you mentioned him) dumped any stat. ;)
* I'm not arguing that a Low Charisma Fighter concept isn't fun or challenging. I'm simply going off of your proposed limitation.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't punish players for their choices, CHALLENGE them.
Well said.
When you remove even that level of interaction I'd argue that you're reducing the game to a very low-tech version of an MMORPG.Or MMORPGs are high tech versions of D&D, err, Pathfinder? Ummm, aren't they?
or is pathfinder a low tech version of an RPG?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you remove even that level of interaction I'd argue that you're reducing the game to a very low-tech version of an MMORPG.Or MMORPGs are high tech versions of D&D, err, Pathfinder? Ummm, aren't they?
No. No they aren't.
The great thing about pen-and-paper RPGs is that you can think outside the box. Just because there's no mechanic for, say, throwing a rock over there and distracting the guard, or dropping a chandelier on someone doesn't mean you can't do it. Nor does there not being a planned dialogue where you seduce the main villain, or talk the mayor into giving you his job for you to do that. Just ask the GM and away you go.
In an MMORPG the rules delineate what actions you can perform. In a tabletop RPG they're more of a starting point for how the actions listed tend to work. This difference is huge.
the number of people who just come in and say some sarcastic response/ make some quip about punishing after the OP said the players wanted an IC penalty...
No. No they aren't.When you remove even that level of interaction I'd argue that you're reducing the game to a very low-tech version of an MMORPG.Or MMORPGs are high tech versions of D&D, err, Pathfinder? Ummm, aren't they?
They are in that they involve computers and require a lot more technology than a pen and paper. Sort of silly to argue that pathfinder is more high tech. You can say a GM can do more than a computer maybe or its easier to throw in a houserule because a game is usually set(though some vary), but pen and paper is probably less tech than a computer. Of course you can always use fantasy grounds or something similar to use it in a high tech fashion I guess?
|
|
They are in that they involve computers and require a lot more technology than a pen and paper. Sort of silly to argue that pathfinder is more high tech. You can say a GM can do more than a computer maybe or its easier to throw in a houserule because a game is usually set(though some vary), but pen and paper is probably less tech than a computer. Of course you can always use fantasy grounds or something similar to use it in a high tech fashion I guess?
I'm not arguing Pathfinder is high tech. I'm arguing that games where a computer arbitrates the rules and ones where a person does so are qualitatively different and can't be said to be versions of the same thing.
Now, you could absolutely do a high-tech RPG with a GM...people just don't usually do so, for various reasons.
Well punish is the wrong word to use but you do need to point out that the character should be role-played as some one with a weak social presence.Although some may find it reassuring that there's a one true way to role play, others may, just perhaps mind you, find it highly offensive and displaying ignorance of the mechanics of the system that are geared for roleplaying. Skills, such as bluff and diplomacy, don't require a certain charisma score to add ranks in. If it's important to the character, they can raise their effectiveness and thus, gasp, play their guys the way they like. Or rather, they can be effective and play how they want....
If you're playing a low Charisma character and you're just roleplaying them like a normal, average person, then you're not going about it the right way. If you want to play a fairly average person, CHA 10 is average, but CHA 7 is well below average. I think a GM is justified in leaning on any CHA<10 character to specify in which aspects of Charisma they are deficient and ask them to RP accordingly.
No. Wrong. Objectively wrong. It's amusing that you think you have the authority to tell others how to role play when you don't the system itself. If we have say a tenth level guy who put a rank in Diplomacy each level but started with a 5 charisma, he will be superior in social interaction to a 20 charisma fellow who neglected that skill.
According to your logic, the high charisma people who don't put ranks in diplomacy "should" role play like spasses.
I'm not arguing Pathfinder is high tech. I'm arguing that games where a computer arbitrates the rules and ones where a person does so are qualitatively different and can't be said to be versions of the same thing.
Now, you could absolutely do a high-tech RPG with a GM...people just don't usually do so, for various reasons.
I wouldn't say it's qualitative, it's just computers are physically incapable of winging it, however they can do preprogrammed things much better and faster than a human.
No. Wrong. Objectively wrong. It's amusing that you think you have the authority to tell others how to role play when you don't the system itself. If we have say a tenth level guy who put a rank in Diplomacy each level but started with a 5 charisma, he will be superior in social interaction to a 20 charisma fellow who neglected that skill.
According to your logic, the high charisma people who don't put ranks in diplomacy "should" role play like spasses.
Skills are not the same as personality, someone who has low charisma but is skilled in diplomacy wouldn't feel most comfortable as a character when using diplomacy and would retract out of it to his normal personality when he feels he can. He could be really good at explaining things in a matter of fact way to gain people's trust and influence them but otherwise not actually be likeable.
Is it wrong of me to note that above posters who think that they know how to run others' characters on the role play side and provide 'consequences,' i.e. passive aggressive punishment for the DM's side exhibit behavior consistent with a charisma score of 5 themselves?
Oops, I was wrong. Not in the ethical sense of course, but objectively. Those who are militantly telling others how they should run their characters are exhibiting behavior consistent with a dearth of diplomacy skill ranks, or at the risk of being a meanie, with a lack of bluff skill ranks.
Please pardon the error.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am really damn tired of the "munchkin" title for any PC who has a low score.
I personally love having a chance to play up low scores, along with high ones.
Many of my fellow players do the same.
This "requirement" of 10 or higher for every score, or get picked on by the DM is one of the stupidest, jerkwad acts of douchebaggery I can imagine in gaming.
It really grinds my gears when this behavior is advocated from a high horse, of some kind of "superior" gaming.
I cannot even fully describe the level of disgust, without breaking the messagboard rules of appropriate content.
I am really damn tired of the "munchkin" title for any PC who has a low score.
I personally love having a chance to play up low scores, along with high ones.
Many of my fellow players do the same.
This "requirement" of 10 or higher for every score, or get picked on by the DM is one of the stupidest, jerkwad acts of douchebaggery I can imagine in gaming.
It really grinds my gears when this behavior is advocated from a high horse, of some kind of "superior" gaming.
I cannot even fully describe the level of disgust, without breaking the messagboard rules of appropriate content.
pre-post notifications: incoming satire
come on we all know everyone needs at least gold encrusted dice to not be considered a filthy casual.
no but seriously, the OP has long stated that the players wanted some IC effect, he meant punishment as a joke.
Oh, one thing I wanted to add was that I pretty much begged them to reroll it but they wanted to stick with it. One is playing a lawful neutral monk and the other is a druid based on the lotr bjorn. They picked the low stat for roleplay effect and I wanted to make sure it had such effect.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have the tendency to punish characters with low charisma.
Actually, punish is the wrong word.
I simply expect stats to be relevant into describing the character phisical appearance and personality.
A character with dumped physical stats can't look like an athlete.
a charaterthat dumps int can't be witty, one with low wisdom can't be overly cautious...
and one with low charisma can't have a strong personality.
I usually play with point buy, so dumping a stat is a deliberate choice and not an unlucky roll of dice.
Anyway... I consider a characterwith a chaisma 3 like gollum.
pathetic, submissive and generally awkward.
I said a thing once when someone asked what a low charisma character with trained diplomacy would look like.
Grima Wormtongue is the perfect example.
My suggestion is to make clear what kind of character would result from low charisma. no matter how high your skills or level, you still are that creepy spineless self-loathing creature that creeps people out.
And it's not about beauty...(even if beauty without the proper attitude could be hard to be made apparent) but about personality.
The old an ugly veteran who barks orders is not low charisma.
The one who is to shy and spineless to give orders away is.
My comments were more focused on a number of other posts, besides the OP.
that's fine because my comment is more focused on the like 3-5 per day who keep accusing the OP of being a horrible DM/person. no seriously, I'm starting to get seriously annoyed.
remember satire is to point something out with comedy, sarcasm is for insult.