Punishing in this circumstance is unfair. They rolled dice that they had no control over. Charisma is generally the skill that least affects a game from mechanics so it's the logical choice to put into. Had they all put the 5 into any other stat would you be just as willing to further punish them?I think everything the GM does should be in the interest in maximizing everyone's fun, so you shouldn't just pick on the guy who has low charisma because he happened to have low charisma. But every group is different and people will have different tolerances for this sort of thing, and some players will make great hay out of the foibles of a low charisma character (I'm especially fond of the potential comedic value of the low CHA fighter whose dearth of charisma manifests as lacking any concept of personal space). So if whatever form "picking on" a character makes the game more fun for everybody, then go for it. If it doesn't, then don't.
Like if you have a half-orc PC, making every NPC racist against half-orc is probably going too far (at the very least talk about it with the player first), but if you make one NPC extremely racist against half-orcs as part of the "the PCs aren't really supposed to like that guy very" then it can be of benefit to the campaign.
Some groups are going to loathe failure, and other groups are going to find great fun in failures that don't result in character death or whatever. It's always important to know your players and if your players are the sort of group that will enjoy "punishment" of this sort, then do it, and if they're not then don't.
I do think more people should write campaigns with very little combat, just so we can re-balance people's perception of the mechanical importance of Charisma. Just, tell your players "this campaign contains very little combat" in advance so they get blindsided when they show up with fighters and barbarians (I mean, a Barbarian in a political campaign is totally valid narrative choice, but you'll be at...
I also don't punish my players for low charisma, the inevitable social rolls will do that enough; what I want is for charisma to have an effect in the setting. So maybe they get into more squabbles, some things are harder, allies are less likely to come to their side--it all depends on the situation but a truly loathsome person is going to have some troubles and it certainly won't be allies at their back.
Sure, I had a player complain about it, but they wanted the physically perfect monk and the game wasn't all or just about combat.
So yeah, generally it means and translates over to more combat, which can work because dump stating makes characters more efficient in non-charisma spellcasting, melee or ranged. Course it can also lead to character death, oh well.
Also, short side story. One of my friends started archery, and he has marvelled at how many of the types that take up archery are fine archers, but very deficient in certain areas. He is noting really low charisma and low people skills amongst these archer bogans. It made me chuckle and I had to say "low charisma rangers man, they dumped charisma to get their dex high" when he brought it up. My friend stuck with archery, but some of his fellow archers cause him to sigh.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any problems with 'powergaming' so that is one difference.
Another is that I try to use as little 'narrating of their events' as possible, preferring to keep things in character to the maximum degree possible.
This is probably the missing piece of the puzzle that has kept this thread going around and around much longer than it perhaps should have. If game balance is not a concern, and you assume everyone will be dumping at least one stat to min/max, and allowing them to conceptualize around having to evince any sign of that deficit, much of this discussion is moot.
I have a personal preference for creating consequences to character choices, I also have a game balance stake in making sure that completely min/max-ed characters don't hog the achievements without a downside.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*shakes fist*So im gonna repeat something for sure but heres my feeling on it summed up...
the initial scenario of rolling stats and then them rolling a 5 and trying to find a dump stat is understandable, its why my group uses the less exciting but waaaay more fair point buy system.
but i dont like pcs dumping charisma for 2 main reasons, for one it normally lets them feel that they have a license to be utter d-bags to the other players, jerk players dont need more of an excuse, and second the points they save dropping charisma goes toward them min maxing their combat abilities so not only are they jerks but they are show stealing jerks.
my solutions to this is pretty simple. eventually a shadow or other charisma damaging creature will appear and one shot them. 5 charisma is 40% one shot from a regular shadow. the fear of this element generally is all a powergamer needs to know to not super drain their charisma. I also make them roll to assist diplomacy even if they dont want too if they interact with a social scene at all ( if they want to wait outside and not get to roleplay with the story its their loss of fun.) I generally have NPCs overlooks them and talk to other more appealing players and this can bug some players that want the points for a low charisma but still want to roleplay a much higher charisma.
Ultimately I try to be fair in my games and not penalize any low stat too much but when a PC has ANY stat at 7 or less its going to define a lot of my narrating of their events.
You mean you have characters who drop from 10(plus 0) down to 7(-2)! The horror. And how dare they do such a dastardly deed in the name of being more effective. Extermination is too good for them. How utterly restrained to simply make new rules up and also throw in monsters specifically at them. We can't allow people to be jerks or steal the show.
Ha ha, yep. I've done it so I don't go too harsh on them.
Dumping dex or con really changes the game experience by the way, especially as a ranged or melee combatant. Then you have to get skirmishing or protecting yourself just right. Nice high stakes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I said... remove Charisma entirely. Then simply remove 1/6th of their points to buy with. Sooo... if they can't dump charisma... something else is going to give. But it's going to be a tougher choice.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not punish but a game should have cause and effect. Thats what role playing is all about.
What happens to such people in real life?
Their food gets spat in (disease saves), dogs attack/pee them, people strangers bully them, they get over charged,in combat they are preferred targets etc etc
Wrong, on so many levels. First DM's passive aggressive "correction" posted by a frighteningly more than few is a lot of things, but it is not what role playing is all about. The classic example is a character who dumps say Charisma to 7. The difference between that awful cad and the noble fellow who toughed it out is a net 2. If you think a two point difference would lead to your made up litany you are out of line.
If the awful cad above had diplomacy as a class skill and put in one rank, while our noble fellow did not- then the tables would be turned. Advantage Cad, noble fellow -2. According to your logic, now the noble fellow would be overcharged, have problems with food, and he would get bullied.
|
As I said... remove Charisma entirely. Then simply remove 1/6th of their points to buy with. Sooo... if they can't dump charisma... something else is going to give. But it's going to be a tougher choice.
That doesn't work, mechanically.
You might as well say "play a different game", because that is exactly what you are asking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I just realized something. The notion of "punish" as is stated in the thread title, is ambiguous.
Does the OP mean:
1) Make the player have a bad time because he or she made a choice the GM didn't like.
2) Create challenges in the game world that test characters not only where they are strong, but also where they are weak.
If it's #1, then no, don't do that, ever.
If it's #2, then that's a thing you should definitely be doing. The one thing I would recommend, however, is when designing challenges in which characters overcome their weaknesses, do not make the repercussions of failing those challenges that players are ill-equipped to face be fatal or even permanently damaging. A character failing in a social situation with an NPC should make that character's life harder, but in a way that lets the GM set more plot hooks in the character, not in a way that reduces the character's options going forward. It's similar to how if you design a combat encounter specifically to require players to do things they are not good at, you should also design it so they can escape if things start going badly for them.
As I said... remove Charisma entirely. Then simply remove 1/6th of their points to buy with. Sooo... if they can't dump charisma... something else is going to give. But it's going to be a tougher choice.
It's great when we can be in agreement. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Cha7 with 1 skill in a class skill vs Cha10 with no skill ranks was the initial comparison. Straw men don't add much.
Actually, the baseline is the gross double standard of flipping out etc. when a guy has minus two disadvantage in a Charisma comparison, even to the point of bringing new 'rules' in to attack him, but not when a skill that would have direct bearing on social behavior is involved.
The munchkins-dropping-a-stat-turned-me-into-a-newt crowd have hurt feelings in spades, reason and rules not so much.
I wouldn't be opposed to blending necessary aspects of Cha into a single 5th stat in conjunction with Wisdom. Not sure what to call it though.
Personally, I would, since as it stands there are 3 mental stats and 3 physical stats, so those attributes of characters are somewhat balanced, while if we combined wisdom and charisma we would end up with more physical stats than mental ones, which I'm not really comfortable with.
Maybe combine Wis and Cha and also combine Strength and Con. Then it's 2 and 2.
As I said... remove Charisma entirely. Then simply remove 1/6th of their points to buy with. Sooo... if they can't dump charisma... something else is going to give. But it's going to be a tougher choice.The funny thing about this is that for the classes who routinely dump charisma this is giving them fewer points than they had before. (Dumping Cha from 10 to 7 yields 4 more build points, after all.)
That being said, while I'm not sure about reducing the total build points, I wouldn't be opposed to blending necessary aspects of Cha into a single 5th stat in conjunction with Wisdom. Not sure what to call it though.
Remove Charisma and related skills completely. If you want to keep Intimidate, base it off Strength. Make bards and sorcerer cast off Wisdom. Base channel energy off Wisdom. As I said above, this is for games based solely on kicking in doors and killing stuff. Any accidental roleplaying that happens can be roleplayed without rolls.
Different games? Certainly not, blackbloodtroll. It merely closes the door on a classic stat dump, forcing character generation choices to mean something.
Kyrt-ryder: Trust me, it wasn't directed at you. In a campaign with differing challenges, combat and roleplaying etc, Charisma plays a role. In one where those facets are never used, it doesn't. That makes it completely safe to dump Charisma as hard as you are allowed, and thus it is a no brainer. The entire stat plays the role of "a way to get more points in the other stats". Better then, if dumping Charisma is a problem, to remove it entirely. It isn't a stat that shows up often, and from a mechanics point of view, it is easily removed. And if you do, of course, take away the corresponding three points for a 20 point buy.
If you're going that far just abandon D&D's historical stats and go with Tri-stat
I just don't feel introducing an asymmetry that compounds something I already see as problematic in the game (too much fightin', not enough talkin') is really a solution.
|
|
Removing charisma is a terrible idea.
It makes no sense, and shuts down the system.
When anyone, so "cleverly" suggests this, they are simply saying "play a different game".
Why?
Because that is what is effectively done when you remove ability scores.
Also, this horrible asinine assumption, that any PC with a low charisma, is the result of some sort of horrible munckin roll-playin' douche player, needs to stop.
Players will play the way that allows them to have the most fun.
Asking others to play to make sure you have fun, but really aren't concerned with their fun, is a jerk move anyways.
Removing a score doesn't change a damn thing.
By the way, the biggest jerk PCs I have ever dealt with, all had 13, or above, charisma.
That's because it's the result of the player's roleplay(who knew?), and not the score.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would you need a stat dealing with social interaction in a game that doesn't feature such interaction, blackbloodtroll? Charisma has avery important role in mixed campaigns, but if every room is storage for only tactical considerations and rolling initiative, it has none. That people protest against removing charisma in a combat-only campaign is really all the evidence needed that dumping charisma frequently IS the result of some horrible munchkin rollplaying douchebag player.
Cheers.
So it IS about points then? As blackbloodtroll put it, the result of a horrible munchkin douchebag rollplay player.
If you're going that far just abandon D&D's historical stats and go with Tri-statI just don't feel introducing an asymmetry that compounds something I already see as problematic in the game (too much fightin', not enough talkin') is really a solution.talkin' vs fightin' isn't a matter of game system, it's a matter of player and GM resonance. Talk to your players in advance about the kind of game you want to run, then run the game you want to run. If you want lots of talkin' then DO lots of talkin'.
It's never stopped me before. Hell most of my campaigns spend about twice as much time out of combat as in it.
I think this problem arose, however, because historically this game has had significantly more mechanical systems for combat than things that aren't combat.
If you look at the core rulebook there's like 30 pages for "how do I kill the orc" and like 2 paragraphs for "how do I convince the Orc to be my friend." Indeed, a lot of groups who are really invested in a low-combat sort of game will probably find themselves better off with a completely different ruleset.
I simply don't feel that reducing the number of mechanics that are irrelevant to combat (by eliminating Charisma) is a positive step at all.
Do you guys RP as strongmen while dumping strength to 7? Agile burglars with a dex of 7? Tough guys with a con of 7? Geniuses with 7 intelligence? Gurus with a 7 wisdom? Politicians with charisma 7?
What's wrong with any of those? They sound like fun ideas to play out to me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
APs are designed around an average stat array and not around optimization. The deva have said as much. The need for 4 build points to optimize a stat is strictly a player wanting more. Nothing wrong with that, but you shouldn't gain all the pro's and then act like the cons don't exist.
Precisely. The entire idea that you can play your character any way you like and ignore its stats completely is merely a consequence of wanting more points by dumping stats and then not having to pay the price for doing so. Or, you know, being a munchkin. Now, if being a munchkin is what floats your boat, be a munchkin and be proud.
|
Well I wouldnt say punish...
but I hate when people build a dump stat.
I would just make the complete lack of Charisma apparent as the culmination of personal appearance (raw looks), Personal Hygiene and personal conduct when interacting with others (not being a jerk)
which players have often tried to counter with...
My character is super attractive, doesnt stick and can talk normally... but they just have a charisma penalty...
then its not really a penalty is it...
but yes, I would just make certain things that people often take for granted or take 10 on. Talking to a bartender for info, talking to a guild leader or any type of personal interaction which effectively people ignore as unimportant effectively taking 10 on.
when your charisma is sub par, everyday mundane things become hard...
|
|
Why would you need a stat dealing with social interaction in a game that doesn't feature such interaction, blackbloodtroll? Charisma has avery important role in mixed campaigns, but if every room is storage for only tactical considerations and rolling initiative, it has none. That people protest against removing charisma in a combat-only campaign is really all the evidence needed that dumping charisma frequently IS the result of some horrible munchkin rollplaying douchebag player.
Cheers.
Thanks for the elitist comments and personal insults!
Who said anything about "combat only"?
That's a different game, not Pathfinder.
What are you playing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
APs are designed around an average stat array and not around optimization. The devs have said as much. The need for 4 build points to optimize a stat is strictly a player wanting more. Nothing wrong with that, but you shouldn't gain all the pro's and then act like the cons don't exist.
The cons do exist- a minus two to Charisma skills. It's bad form to make up cons that don't exist and/or blow out of proportion the measly -2 that does.