| 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.
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?
The elitist comment and the insult were quotes from you, in case you missed it.
>I< said anything about combat only. If you don't read what people write, you may miss things.
It is certainly not a different game just because you don't get seven more build points from dumping a stat you never intend to use. You know, for builds that ROUTINELY dump Charisma.
Myself, I play campaigns where Charisma, social interaction, roleplaying and so on matter. A dumped Charisma means something, and not just when you roll.
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.So then the fighter is equal to the barbarian is equal to the ranger is equal to the paladin is equal to the rogue etc. The differences are minor and can be neglected and my role playing will make up for the rest.
No one is blowing anything out of proportion. Just different gaming styles. You do like to repeat yourself though.
Since we have the specter of having a minus two to a score haunting pathfinder, a fighter = barbarian = ranger?? That makes no sense. No one is blowing anything out of proportion? Have you been reading this thread? I'm so sorry if my bringing up minus two pops your bubble of hysteria.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A dumped Charisma means something, and not just when you roll.
Welcome to the fundamental point of disagreement in this thread. There are some people here (myself included) who believe that your stats should mean something even when you're not rolling for anything, there are other people here that believe they shouldn't (well, other than carrying capacity, I suppose.)
I think what we're seeing is just a culture clash. In 20+ years of playing tabletop RPGs, I've never met a played with a person in physical space that didn't agree with me about how stats should be reflected, but the neat thing about the internet is that you can meet all sorts of people with different experiences from your own.
I guess don't play games with people whose interpretations of the game are incompatible with your own.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma is used for more than just Social Skills.
Use Magic Device checks.
Bluff checks to Feint. Intimidate checks to Demoralize. Handle Animal.
Channel energy DCs for Clerics and Paladins.
Bards, Paladins, Oracles, Summoners, and Sorcerers base their abilities/spells of Charisma.
Hit points and Fortitude Saves for Undead use Charisma.
Charisma checks for Planar Binding, and other spells.
Wild Empathy, and number of other spells/abilities of the Druid.
Cavalier abilities, Rogue/Ninja abilities, Barbarian abilities, Gunslinger abilities, and more.
Spell-like abilities, Supernatural abilities, Extraordinary abilities can all be charisma based.
Now, go ahead and try to change all of that.
What game are you playing?
BBT: Put them on wis or int instead. Simple.
Next up: For some reason, 100% of the people who have dumped Charisma in campaigns where I have been present have said that their bad Charisma is not because of their looks, in fact they are supermodel material, it is just that they are obnoxious and do not play well with others. These characters then proceed to act like complete douchebags.
BBT: Put them on wis or int instead. Simple.Not simple.
You alter a massive rules dynamic.
Also, a number of changes destroy concepts, or work in ways that make no sense.
Oh, I beg to differ. It is simple to do. And yes, it does destroy concepts. Specifically the concept of getting a few extra points for your optimized Dexterity or Strength by dumping Charisma that doesn't cost you anything. That is not a bug, it is a feature.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stats are descriptive, not prescriptive. They are RP guidelines, not restrictions.
A low Cha character doesn't have to be dull, or repulsive, or shy, but you can describe his low Cha as such.
I do believe that stats are prescriptive in the following sense: you do not need to describe your low or high stat in any specific means (i.e. you don't look it up on a table), but if you have, say, a low intelligence, you should consider that "on average, my character has a harder time learning and applying knowledge than another person with the same training and education, why is that?"
A low charisma character need not be anything in particular, but one ought to consider why exactly this character has a harder time making friends or telling lies than someone else with the same background. It needn't be anything in particular, but I do feel it should be something. It's impossible to enumerate the total number of ways one can fail to be charismatic, or wise, or whatever so just come up with whichever way you feel fits best.
Next up: For some reason, 100% of the people who have dumped Charisma in campaigns where I have been present have said that their bad Charisma is not because of their looks, in fact they are supermodel material, it is just that they are obnoxious and do not play well with others. These characters then proceed to act like complete douchebags.
That is a player issue. These are people looking for an excuse to act like a douchebag, and were doing so regardless of Cha score.
Next up: For some reason, 100% of the people who have dumped Charisma in campaigns where I have been present have said that their bad Charisma is not because of their looks, in fact they are supermodel material, it is just that they are obnoxious and do not play well with others. These characters then proceed to act like complete douchebags.That is a player issue. These are people looking for an excuse to act like a douchebag, and were doing so regardless of Cha score.
But here is a mechanism that specifically rewards them for doing so.
|
|
But here is a mechanism that specifically rewards them for doing so.Next up: For some reason, 100% of the people who have dumped Charisma in campaigns where I have been present have said that their bad Charisma is not because of their looks, in fact they are supermodel material, it is just that they are obnoxious and do not play well with others. These characters then proceed to act like complete douchebags.That is a player issue. These are people looking for an excuse to act like a douchebag, and were doing so regardless of Cha score.
It known as DMs and Players, not saying "Hey, don't be a Jerk".
Next up: For some reason, 100% of the people who have dumped Charisma in campaigns where I have been present have said that their bad Charisma is not because of their looks, in fact they are supermodel material, it is just that they are obnoxious and do not play well with others. These characters then proceed to act like complete douchebags.
Well, if you have a problem with the people at the table with you, might I suggest broaching the issue with them, rather than assuming that every person you might encounter makes the same mistake?
When I have low CHA characters, I RP them like that. Sometimes if I have high CHA characters, I roleplay them as though they have lower Charisma if there's a conceptual reason for doing so (e.g. the character is shy, despite her 14 CHA.)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just wanted to be clear that we're playing two completely different games. One where I follow the guidelines and rules to help define my character instead of yours that isn't pathfinder.
They're both Pathfinder, just different interpretations of it. There is no One True Pathfinder.
|
|
I usually dump a stat, when it is key to a concept.
Example 1: I had a Possessed Oracle/Barbarian with the Spirit Totem, that I dumped Wisdom with.
She was basically an insane Doomsayer. Her low Wisdom made her Sense Motive and Perception, along with Will saves, low. This represented her weakness to attacks on the mind, and lack of awareness to the world around her. Her high charisma worked well with her natural ability to frighten others, and be persuasive, when needed.
Just wanted to be clear that we're playing two completely different games. One where I follow the guidelines and rules to help define my character instead of yours that isn't pathfinder. Explains the difference of opinion.
I would personally consider anything in which a plurality of the published rules used to come from Pathfinder material to be Pathfinder. Edge cases I would need to consider is something that's overwhelmingly homebrew with some Pathfinder and something that's mostly 3.5 with some Pathfinder.
But if it makes you feel better, just interpret "interpretations of the game that differ from your own" as "house rules." I think everybody can be happy with that.
Like I don't imagine anybody would object over much to "In this campaign, your characters have been kidnapped and brought to faerieland, and since the fae place so much emphasis on physical appearance, for purposes of this campaign Charisma will relate specifically to attractiveness, if it makes you feel better, consider your physical body to have been warped by the ambient magic of the place to have their outer beauty reflect their inner beauty" even if they don't normally conflate Charisma and Appearance.
I think people mostly just object to being told they're playing the game wrong.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What was that about improper comparisons earlier? :P
You see, Pathfinder is the elephant, and we are the peanut, but not the real peanut, but the metaphorical peanut, that is a metaphor, inside this metaphor, and the elephant crushes us, but only in hyperbolic comments, on things that don't exist, but they do, because the unwritten rules say they do, and at the end, the elephant hits a homerun, and we are all ingested, along with crackerjacks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't matter. The argument is over. Two groups arguing different things. Some people are ignoring rules and playing how they want vs others accepting rules and playing according to them. The game says falling causes damage. Saying you don't care doesn't negate the damage. Telling people they're wrong when there's written proof doesn't make you right.
What are you saying is wrong?
What are you saying is wrong?not the fact that Cha doesn't affect their looks, because... you know... it doesn'tCharisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance
I disagree with the notion that Charisma must relate to appearance. I simply feel that Charisma can relate to appearance if that's what the player wants it to be.
If you have a low Charisma character where the concept that she is drop dead gorgeous, knows it, comes from nobility, and as a result treats everybody like subhuman garbage as a result, then that's reasonable since that person would be hard to like.
If you want to have a high Charisma character who is quite ugly and physically repellent, but he's a warm-hearted, charming, nice, and likeable person despite looking like the elephant man, that's reasonable too since everybody who gives that guy a chance would probably end up liking him.
|
|
Next up: For some reason, 100% of the people who have dumped Charisma in campaigns where I have been present have said that their bad Charisma is not because of their looks, in fact they are supermodel material, it is just that they are obnoxious and do not play well with others. These characters then proceed to act like complete douchebags.
This is a fault of a minority of players, not the game.
I doubt this will change your mind though.
I am never going to convince you that everyone is not the stereotype you have forced upon them.
I am not going to convince that you are anything, but the most superior cream of the crop, master gamer, with all the answers, to a better game, a better gaming style, and a better way of having fun.
I am not going to convince, that you could be wrong, in the slightest, or that anyone doing anything, not fitting to your closed preconception as to the motives, is anything but a horrible person, not having fun "the right way".
So, I won't.
I will continue to share my experiences, and opinions, but I won't debate, anything, with you.
a dozen or more points that I don't care to argue]...
That's unfortunate, given that most of them generally involve me citing one part of the rulebooks or another that, well, shows that abilities do inform a character's concept. And that's kind of the thrust of this topic now (given that the majority of the posters aren't seriously advocating punishing anyone).
What does matter is how the player in question decides to play; in that sense what the ability score is does not matter. When an appropriate interaction occurs, there are skills to take care of that case.
But this brings up back to one of those points that you didn't care to argue. Does the sum of possible interactions you can have in the Pathfinder game come down to the skills that happen to default to the Charisma ability?
That is, do your characters simply like, negotiate, disguise themselves, intimidate, give artistic performances and use magical devices?
And if the player in question decides to play a character whose concept doesn't fit the attributes he rolled up/bought, how is the Game Master a bad guy for asking him to abide by a basic facet of the game?
How does, "Sorry, your ranks in Knowledge: Military Tactics have helped you overcome your below-average Intelligence on the battlefield, but that doesn't mean you have an 'instinctive grasp' of tactics" become a valid reason for someone to say, "I'm not playing with you"?
It's good to know there's a limit to your issues and how others' are to role play.
I'm trying to be nice here: please don't put words in my mouth. Despite my disagreement with kyrt-ryder, I have consistently stated to him that I respect whatever he chooses to do in his gaming table.
Well, if low Charisma can be negated by skills like Diplomacy, shouldn't there also be a skill called Bodybuilding to negate low strength?
Charisma 6, Diplomacy 15 = charming and persuasive.
Strength 6, Bodybuilding 15 = strong and muscly.
Low Charisma cannot entirely be negated by skills like Diplomacy, considering a high charisma character who has invested the same number of resources into Diplomacy will, on average, always outperform the low Charisma diplomat.
This is basiclaly saying that by putting in time and effort to learn a skill you become better at it and how much better you can become depends on the work you put into it (i.e. leveling up and investing skill points) rather than who you started out as (i.e. your level 1 stats.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Doesn't matter. The argument is over. Two groups arguing different things. Some people are ignoring rules and playing how they want vs others accepting rules and playing according to them. The game says falling causes damage. Saying you don't care doesn't negate the damage. Telling people they're wrong when there's written proof doesn't make you right.
Your arrogance is not a substitute for ignorance. The insistence that a minus two penalty equals some kind of social armageddon ignores that having a class skill bonus alone means a three difference. No one is saying having a 7 Charisma makes no difference- there are specific rules and specific skills that it does affect. What I've read are people so upset about others' choices that they invent rules and situations. The rules don't support your made up assumptions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: I should also note that in the case of my own character who was talented in tactics didn't have Knowledge:Military Tactics. He had zero historical background in it, he had a sharp mind for it, that was his talent. Despite a 5 int.
Is it wrong that I feel something like that should probably be handled by a trait? In my games, I let players take lots of traits (and drawbacks) to flesh out their characters, and it's easy to create a template for a trait that indicates "natural talent for strategy" just base it on all the other "get a bonus, it's now a class skill" traits.
Like if that's your character concept, I might just give you that trait for free, or work with you to create a drawback that goes with your character concept to balance it out.
a dozen or more points that I don't care to argue]...That's unfortunate, given that most of them generally involve me citing one part of the rulebooks or another that, well, shows that abilities do inform a character's concept. And that's kind of the thrust of this topic now (given that the majority of the posters aren't seriously advocating punishing anyone).
What does matter is how the player in question decides to play; in that sense what the ability score is does not matter. When an appropriate interaction occurs, there are skills to take care of that case.But this brings up back to one of those points that you didn't care to argue. Does the sum of possible interactions you can have in the Pathfinder game come down to the skills that happen to default to the Charisma ability?
That is, do your characters simply like, negotiate, disguise themselves, intimidate, give artistic performances and use magical devices?
And if the player in question decides to play a character whose concept doesn't fit the attributes he rolled up/bought, how is the Game Master a bad guy for asking him to abide by a basic facet of the game?
How does, "Sorry, your ranks in Knowledge: Military Tactics have helped you overcome your below-average Intelligence on the battlefield, but that doesn't mean you have an 'instinctive grasp' of tactics" become a valid reason for someone to say, "I'm not playing with you"?
It's good to know there's a limit to your issues and how others' are to role play.I'm trying to be nice here: please don't put words in my mouth. Despite my disagreement with kyrt-ryder, I have consistently stated to him that I respect whatever he chooses to do in his gaming table.
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. A character can indeed play any concept they want, I'm not saying they will be effective. The difference is where the vague, unsubstantiated 'corrections' pop up with no grounding in the rules. No where have I said because a guy thinks and plays like he's a master of disguise does that means he simply executes it without the work behind it to carry it off. Nor does that mean say a Sorcerer can get spell bonus because he simply wants to.
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.
Actually, you can disregard my last post. I responded to EpicFail's response to a post of mine without reading ahead.
This entire time, I thought this debate was strictly on interpretive grounds. That is, I thought it was strictly about how (in some cases) some people were interpreting the rules differently or how (in other cases) some people felt enforcement of the rules was unfair.
The second we start getting into character optimization, the whole topic changes for me. We're not really just talking about whether or not the game intends for Charisma 7 to be below-average and that it should be role-played as such*. We're talking about wanting to make an "effective" character, and - to that end - potentially lowering one ability score to add to another one. More to the point, we're talking about lowering that ability score AND reserving the right to nonetheless role-play it as we see fit.
Mind you, I have nothing against character optimization. Here's my question, though: if you want a character build along mechanically optimized lines but don't want to hinder your roleplaying experience, why not simply increase the Point Buy or use a more heroic dice-rolling method?
* With the obvious caveat of those interactions that are affected by skills the character is adept in.
People can role play how they want, and when a specific situation arises the rules bat last. A character can indeed play any concept they want, I'm not saying they will be effective.
I would also observe that the concept of the character is largely how the character exists in his or her own mind. If someone has the idea to play the "cool dude that everybody loves" but invests no resources in social skills or charisma, and as a result repeatedly performs poorly in social situations, then he would be more perceived by others as "the guy who thinks he's cool and everybody loves him" than "the cool dude that everybody loves."
No one's saying that you can't act like "the cool dude that everybody loves" with a CHA of 5 and no ranks in any social skills, but you're not going to be very effective at being cool or lovable and that will be reflected in how the world treats you.
In fact, that's a fair concept for a low CHA character: someone who's totally in love with themselves to the point they don't realize how other people react to them.