Low attributes are, indeed, only going to bite you in the ass, and a skilled GM knows how to create obstacles subtly but definitely to show players that they maybe shouldn't have given their character a low attribute, unless they're willing to roleplay that lowered attribute and accept penalties for it, so long as the penalties are explained beforehand ("Your lowered Intelligence will prevent you from using my rules on Advanced Fighting Styles. Are you sure?").
Ok, so I just get my 8 cha and play myself.
It really depends on how you view stat points. I consider every 2 points to be 1 standard deviation. Therefore, 16% of the population has lower than an 8, and ~18% had 8 or 9, in any given stat.As far as discouraging dump stats goes, just make sure that everyone has to be involved and pays attention. Encumbrance is a thing that often gets ignored (note str damage does not actually affect encumbrance in Pathfinder), and just making people waste resources to succeed DC10 climb checks makes them think twice a lot of times. Dex, just introduce stealth situations or any of the many skill checks, not to mention combat issues. Low Con has its own disadvantages that come up a lot with HP. Int kills skill points, so making skill checks relevant for different characters usually prevents people dumping it. Wisdom is usually too important for will saves and perception to be dumped. With Charisma, just don't allow the party face to roll for interactions other people have and have NPCs talk to everyone in the party. If you can't rely on your friends diplomacy check to cover your behavior, suddenly people wont dump it, or it will result in a fun evening.
Unless I misunderstand, your system is basically roll 2d6 +6, reroll 1s. (Or 2d5+8 if you had d5s. Easy enough with a computer.) Boils down to all stats being 10-18 with a mean of 14.It seems to me your objection to point buy really comes down to the observation that MAD characters are harder to build. Think about it. Take any array you want. It will be easier to build a SAD character, regardless. The problem is not the way you generate the numbers.
For example, I used an on-line dice roller to generate 10 arrays using your system. The worst was 14,14,12,11,11,10, the equivalent of a 14-point buy. The best was 17,17,16,16, 14,13, a 54-point equivalent.The average point-buy equivalent was 34.4.
So if you have someone starting a character in your campaign, why would you consider it more fair to take a chance on the dice rolls versus, say, a 35-point buy?
It is a trade-off. You can take the risk of a low array with the chance to be just crazy high, or you can play it safe. I don't see either method giving a particular advantage or disadvantage to players who want a given type of character.
You're overlooking the effect of the third d6. By having a 3d6, drop lowest +6, you end up with higher averages. Taking the d5 approach, it would be best two of 3d5+8. Someone in another thread did the math on it and came up with an average point buy value of 42. Although at that time it was reroll one and two. So, I imagine it's a bit lower now.
Of course it's easy to build single ability characters no matter what, but multiple ability characters benefit more from the boost. If a wizard gets a bang up Con and Dex, so what? They won't even notice having a good Cha and Wis. Str will just let them carry a bigger spellbook. Compare that to the monk, for which almost every ability has a benefit. The fighter, the Rogue, the Paladin, the Bard, the Magus, even the Barbarian all of them can benefit greatly from extra stats. Basically, any class that does one thing, that isn't magic, and any class that does both combat and magic.
Edit: You also forgot that the "risk" of rolling and getting low stats is mitigated by the option to choose, after rolling, a generous array. I don't know what equivalent point value 18 16 15 14 13 11 has, but it's nothing to scoff at.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It really depends on how you view stat points. I consider every 2 points to be 1 standard deviation. Therefore, 16% of the population has lower than an 8, and ~18% had 8 or 9, in any given stat.
Make sure you communicate that prior to character creation, because that's not what someone would get just from reading the Core Rulebook:
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.
So in default Pathfinder, the bulk of the population of the planet (i.e., anyone not unique enough to be custom-statted by the GM), just about everyone, has an 8 somewhere.
A normal person is someone whose stats (before race) range from 8 to 13. A heroic person is someone whose stats range from 8 to 15.
8 is normal.
This also means that, if you assume random/even distribution of these scores and start looking at racial adjustments, then...
Fully one-sixth of dwarves have 6 CHA. Somewhere between half and two thirds (depending on the basic/heroic ratio in the population) have CHA somewhere in the single digits.
They still function as a society.
Same goes for halflings' STR, nagaji's INT, etc.
For humans, an 8 is normal. For certain races, even a 6 can be normal in certain stats.
Anyone who wants stats to be different than that in their game world needs to communicate their preferences to their players in advance, and not judge those whose characters would have matched the default world prior to that clarification.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1.) I don't.
2.) I probably wouldn't join it. Passive-aggressively "allowing" something and then s~!@ting all over a player (and not just the player, the rest of the group by association) because he takes that option tells me right off we're not going to get along. If you don't like something at least have the balls to ban it outright, it'll show you're at least honest and straightforward enough to deal with.
This.
This is as big a pile of dickery as 'sure you can play a paladin, I'll just take away your powers in the first session'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1) If you discourage dump stats in your game, how do you do so?
I don't discourage dump stats. As a GM, I like it when characters have distinctive characteristics like a low ability score.
2) How does the discouragement of dump stats affect your willingness to join a campaign, and your enjoyment of the game, as a player?
I don't mind if dump stats are discouraged, but I wouldn't put up with a "screw the player" enforcement method. If you don't want me to have a certain ability score, character class, alignment, etc. just tell me up front.
It really depends on how you view stat points. I consider every 2 points to be 1 standard deviation. Therefore, 16% of the population has lower than an 8, and ~18% had 8 or 9, in any given stat.Make sure you communicate that prior to character creation, because that's not what someone would get just from reading the Core Rulebook:
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.
So in default Pathfinder, the bulk of the population of the planet (i.e., anyone not unique enough to be custom-statted by the GM), just about everyone, has an 8 somewhere.
A normal person is someone whose stats (before race) range from 8 to 13. A heroic person is someone whose stats range from 8 to 15.
8 is normal.
This also means that, if you assume random/even distribution of these scores and start looking at racial adjustments, then...
Fully one-sixth of dwarves have 6 CHA. Somewhere between half and two thirds (depending on the basic/heroic ratio in the population) have CHA somewhere in the single digits.
They still function as a society.
Same goes for halflings' STR, nagaji's INT, etc.
For humans, an 8 is normal. For certain races, even a 6 can be normal in certain stats.
Anyone who wants stats to be different than that in their game world needs to communicate their preferences to their players in advance, and not judge those whose characters would have matched the default world prior to that clarification.
Nothing you say contradicts me. In fact, it supports my statements.
The point buy system already has an anti-dump stat measure build in -- you can't reduce a stat to less than 7 before racial mods. If you were rolling ability scores, a score of as low as 3 before racial mods becomes possible.
Nothing you say contradicts me. In fact, it supports my statements.and ~18% had 8 or 9So only about 18% of the NPCs populating your world use the standard arrays?
"In any given stat"
So 1 in 6 people would assign the 8 to that stat, or ~16% of people. Another 16% would have a 9. My assumption is 16% would have below 8 and 18% would have an 8 or 9. In the end, the standard array is a little more forgiving than my assumptions, but basically amounts to a +1 in the stats. That is nothing compared to the overall generalizations that go on with stats.Edit: and the standard array probably makes for a better game balance wise.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Nothing you say contradicts me. In fact, it supports my statements.and ~18% had 8 or 9So only about 18% of the NPCs populating your world use the standard arrays?"In any given stat"
So 1 in 6 people would assign the 8 to that stat, or ~16% of people.
Oh! Okay, I guess I misunderstood your original statement. :)
I have no problem with dump stats, as there are mechanical disadvantages to doing so. Hell, I think I am by far the most munchkin person in our local gaming group, and I break out in hives any time I attempt to drop a stat below a -1... and this is AFTER racial modifiers!
Of course, this may also be a reflection on how our games tend to be structured. RP is quite prevalent, and not playing to your stats is rather frowned upon. That said, an 8 or 9 doesn't exactly mean someone is horribly unlikeable - they might be a bit shy, they might have an annoying laugh, they might simply be a bit of a grump. It isn't until you start hitting modifiers of -2 that much more noticeable effects start coming into play.
The same really can be said for the physical abilities, but they also generally have a much more noticeable impact on combat, and thus are much easier to see - and the effects of negative modifiers tends to be far more noticeable.
|
Dumping stats just so that a character can put more points into another stat is very strongly discouraged in my games, if not outright banned. It falls within min-maxing which I consider cheating, sort of. So, yes, I will probably go out of my way to have that character's dump stat bite him in the ass more than it should.
If he dumped the stat for roleplay reasons, however, kudos to him.
I remember we were generating characters and our monk player really wanted his character to be stupid. Wise but stupid. We were rolling for stats and he rolled an amazing array. So he asked his GM to lower one of his rolls to 7. Because he wanted his monk to be stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a dwarf with a 5 charisma. She's a feral beastmorph alchemist (so, not maximised at all) who drinks like a fish, smells like her chemicals and never obtained the social skills to get along with other dwarves - let alone humans. Most of the time she has her head in a book, but when she gets angry, she downs her mutagen and wades into battle with fangs and claw. Most people think she's a freak, and she's now so used to being disliked that she kind of revels in it. Hence, the 5 charisma is totally in character.
My GM does many of the same things the GM in the original post does. Shopkeepers charge her extra, quest givers don't trust her and she tends to get thrown out of pubs (pulling out home brew while insulting what's on tap usually doesn't got over well with the barkeep). She struggles in any social encounter and usually has to take a backseat lest she ruin the plan, which can sometimes be hard for me, as a player. But for us, the comedic and dramatic consequences of playing an unlikeable dwarf (who secretly wants to be a hero) are part of the fun.
Building a 5 charisma character, I knew I was in for some hard times, but for this character, it worked. It really comes down to an agreement of kinds between the player and the GM to play to the stats but still make it fun.
1.) I don't.
2.) I probably wouldn't join it. Passive-aggressively "allowing" something and then s~!@ting all over a player (and not just the player, the rest of the group by association) because he takes that option tells me right off we're not going to get along. If you don't like something at least have the balls to ban it outright, it'll show you're at least honest and straightforward enough to deal with.
This.
This is as big a pile of dickery as 'sure you can play a paladin, I'll just take away your powers in the first session'.
Pretty much agree with Zhayne and Rynjin here. I prefer for my players not to dump stats -- that said I'll tell them what I expect and what I enforce and let it go from there. If you are comfortable with the ramifications of your actions, or stats, or alignment, then cool. But if you make a hideous social troll or utter weakling and aren't interested in dealing with the in game problems (represented by encumbrance penalties, stat mods and so on) then you may want to rethink.
Sounds like the OPs GM had some bad experiences and is trying in some way to lay down the law, but in a counter-productive way instead of talking to the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people have an odd idea about what a low stat is. The average npc stat value would be 10.5. So for example, having a 10 to 11 intelligence would would basically be having an IQ of 100. From that point, having an 8 or even a 7 would be far from mentally challenged.
Or consider a 7 in strength. With that stat you would still be able to lift an up to 140 lb object off the ground and move it, albeit awkwardly.
So, you can consider "dump" stats to be "gamey", but you have to remember that having a low stat is far from being a wimp or a dullard. It's just being a little below average. Honestly, max stats should feel way more gamey. A person with a 20 in a stat is basically a freak.
If you are discouraging 7s and 8s, I don't see why you would allow 14 through 20 either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think people have an odd idea about what a low stat is. The average npc stat value would be 10.5. So for example, having a 10 to 11 intelligence would would basically be having an IQ of 100. From that point, having an 8 or even a 7 would be far from mentally challenged.
Or consider a 7 in strength. With that stat you would still be able to lift an up to 140 lb object off the ground and move it, albeit awkwardly.
So, you can consider "dump" stats to be "gamey", but you have to remember that having a low stat is far from being a wimp or a dullard. It's just being a little below average. Honestly, max stats should feel way more gamey. A person with a 20 in a stat is basically a freak.
If you are discouraging 7s and 8s, I don't see why you would allow 14 through 20 either.
I honestly know way more people who can't lift 140 lbs off the ground than can lift 400 (str 15)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly know way more people who can't lift 140 lbs off the ground than can lift 400 (str 15)
And for those who will want to chime in about how light 140 lbs is, consider that gym weights are designed for lifting, they have balanced handles to aid you. Using gym weights is basically like getting a +2 circumstance bonus. Try bailing hay some time. A merely 100 pound hay bail is a pain to get up into a trailer.
I don't understand everyones problem with "dump" stats.
Why do all characters have to be good at everything? Isn't it natural that strength and weaknesses alter from person to person what ever that persons goal is?
A warrior who focuses on fighting has not much use for charisma, he isn't trying to charm anyone. Same with a Wizard who doesn't care that he's physically weak, because he is strong in his mind.
Rolling stats can lead to some people having crazy high luck, or really bad rolls. Point buy ensures that everyone has a equal stat array, people can build what ever they want in a way that makes it effective.
I also don't understand the dislike for min/maxing. having characters that are good at what ever they want to be good at just ensures less PK and more fun all around.
Each GM gets to qualify the flavor and mythology of his game. In my case, in a Kyonin-focused campaign, part of my personal Golarion's mythology is that most humans are average 9 for stats, while Elves are average 11 (thus, epic points buy). But part of being epic means not being average, thus, the proscription against taking my epic concept, which is generous to begin with in terms of stat buy, to an outrageous place where you start with 20 Int and 19 Dex because you took 7 in both Strength and Wisdom.
But in terms of weeding out players who aren't a good fit for me and my campaign, let me say I am not shy.
In terms of min-maxing, if you like it great. I don't know if you play Pathfinder Society games at all, but the min-maxing in Pathfinder, where over-powered is the norm, it's really a matter of fit. Non min-maxers don't like min-maxers because min-maxers are looking for something that non-min-maxers detest 'competitive playing'; the idea is how much better can I do this than anyone thinks it can even be done.
If you're a non-min-max character at a min-max table, you might as well bring needlepoint because you're not needed at their table. Often, in fact, one overpowered character (*cough* GUNSLINGER *cough*) can relegate an entire party to "also-ran" status. I've seen it multiple times.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
min-maxers are looking for something that non-min-maxers detest 'competitive playing'; the idea is how much better can I do this than anyone thinks it can even be done.
After reading this statement, I'd like to request that you stop talking like you have any idea what "min-maxers" are looking for.
Not to the min-max world, no.
I stand by my descriptives and note, to the audience in general, your apparent need to silence me without instead defending your play style.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If anyone actually played as you describe, perhaps the style would need defending.
The nice thing about straw men is that they can't speak on their own behalf. The bad thing about them is that you look like an idiot when you complaint about real people in terms that exist only in your own projections.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to the min-max world, no.
I stand by my descriptives and note, to the audience in general, your apparent need to silence me without instead defending your play style.
Your mistake is in assuming people need to be on the defensive when presented with absurd ad hominem.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I stand by my descriptives and note, to the audience in general, your apparent need to silence me without instead defending your play style.
Wait, my playstyle? When did my playstyle get mentioned? Because what we were talking about...
min-maxers are looking for something that non-min-maxers detest 'competitive playing'; the idea is how much better can I do this than anyone thinks it can even be done
...was (1) not a playstyle, but rather an assumption of the motives behind a playstyle, and (2) not descriptive of me in the least.
Which is of course why I didn't "defend" it. I don't defend things that I don't actually do, especially not because some guy on the internet made up a motive for the folks who do.
It would be like if I came out of nowhere to say that non-min-maxers are just looking to cover up their below-average math and critical thinking skills. Can you imagine if I responded to you requesting that I not make comments like that by saying ?
Because that's where you're at right now. You're the guy who ascribes undesirable (and completely fabricated) motives to others, then responds to being called out on it by implying guilt ("without defending") and playing the martyr ("oh, they want to silence me!"), all while believing yourself to have an "audience" to whom you seem to think you're displaying something.
Play the game however you want, but your "anyone who plays this other way must be doing it because of X" crap to yourself.
Penalties outside of what the game dictates. 5 star DMing.oh I don't like the lowest CHA gets attacked by the animal… an optimizer is going to use that to build a tank, so basically you created an exploitable mechanic where the character is building "aggro"…so basically he can tank against anything that does employe tactics in combat.Well the whole point of the houserule is that low-Cha characters have trouble getting what they want - so if he was trying to tank he would get ignored. It's less of a hard-and-fast thing and more "the universe tends to dump on you."Ignore my low charisma tank ... if you can.
** spoiler omitted **
A big enough battlefield, enough enemies, and/or enemies that have the tactics to counter his abilities, and it doesn't matter if Charisma rolls are involved. Your character could pin down a few to be certain, but it wouldn't be that hard for a competent DM to find a way for NPCs to ignore such a character if he really felt like it. Honestly, if the DM is pushing for that kind of use of Charisma and you don't like it, trying to create a character that directly challenges it is not usually a good idea. Better to simply find another group and/or find a compromise that works for both parties.
Personally I tend to deal with dump stats by treating any score, positive or negative, noticeably out of the norm as something that will tend to be get noticed by NPCs, who will react according their own points of view. Sometimes the reaction will be positive for the character, sometimes not, and again it doesn't matter if the difference is a positive or a negative number. If 2 characters walk into a seedy bar in the rundown part of town, and one has a 20 charisma and the other a 6, the one with the 6 is going to tend to have an easier time getting information because the one with a 20 is going to come as too polished and practiced to be trusted by folks in that particular bar. The character with a 6 charisma will also likely have less expectations placed on him than a character with a 20 charisma, and suffer less penalties if he fails to meet them precisely. He will also be less likely to find himself facing jealous rivals and other problems that come with being super charismatic. He'll have his own set of problems, to be sure, but they won't be particularly more of a burden than the ones facing the 20 cha character.
The number the player gives the character is only part of the equation; how well that number matches up with the NPCs in any given scenario and their expectations that come with that particular number matter just as much. Same with any stat, race, or class; any deviation from what is seen as normal will come with certain expectations, challenges, and opportunities. The line between famous and infamous can get pretty thin at times and it's not always within the control of the character how others view them or react to them. The farther from normal one gets, the truer this becomes.
By doing it this way, and using an alternate rolling method that limits really, really low stats to those who really try for them, I don't usually have very many complaints of people who roll low if everyone else is rolling high, because the people who roll low usually end up closer to normal, and thus find it easier to control any difficulties that come from their stats.
You know, I want to play a character with a 6 Con for these GMs everyone talks about, just to see what they do to the character...
Tri,
My guess is he would die a grizzly death PDQ.
That's missing a lot of HP per level and a much higher likelihood and not stabilizing, never mind things like saves.
Even if you had an elf wizard who, could feasibly have an con of 6, and might be the brainy book type
This character would have so few Hps, a flurry of snowballs would finish him.
So, In short, the Dm wouldn't need to target this character… he wouldn't last a random encounter.
.
Penalties outside of what the game dictates. 5 star DMing.oh I don't like the lowest CHA gets attacked by the animal… an optimizer is going to use that to build a tank, so basically you created an exploitable mechanic where the character is building "aggro"…so basically he can tank against anything that does employe tactics in combat.Well the whole point of the houserule is that low-Cha characters have trouble getting what they want - so if he was trying to tank he would get ignored. It's less of a hard-and-fast thing and more "the universe tends to dump on you."
wait, so anything the character wants, he is denied?
simply by having a low cha?I mean you CAN still succeed socially, with a good roll (essentially under the right circumstances)
So you can't simply blanket party the low cha player for having the low cha…
Although, I guess I like the idea of "luck" being based on cha.
You know, I probably have a charisma stat of about 6 or 7 in real life, and I can still walk through small towns just fine without getting rotten vegetables thrown at me.
-2 really isn't much of a handicap in a system with a probability variation of 20.
You know, I probably have a charisma stat of about 6 or 7 in real life, and I can still walk through small towns just fine without getting rotten vegetables thrown at me.
-2 really isn't much of a handicap in a system with a probability variation of 20.
Which is why I tend to treat it by circumstances. Normally just walking around a town or doing basic shopping won't elicit any kind of notable reaction unless there are local circumstances that dictate otherwise, because, well, most people engaged in those activities just don't care. Getting information, dealing with specific people or issues, or getting rarer, hard to find items is where things can get tricky, and while having a higher or lower number on the sheet will have an impact, so will other factors, some of which can be controlled by the player, others not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm generally of the feeling that low charisma is less about being unlikable/ugly and more about being unmemorable/unremarkable. Someone with a low charisma isn't automatically hated, instead they just go unnoticed. They are the people you don't spare a second glance as you make your way down the street.
From the Core:
[code]Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.[/code]
Now, of course, when the unnoticed tries to get noticed, they will receive a negative response, and people will say, "Who does this person think he is?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm generally of the feeling that low charisma is less about being unlikable/ugly and more about being unmemorable/unremarkable. Someone with a low charisma isn't automatically hated, instead they just go unnoticed. They are the people you don't spare a second glance as you make your way down the street.
From the Core:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.Now, of course, when the unnoticed tries to get noticed, they will receive a negative response, and people will say, "Who does this person think he is?"
From my short conversation with James Jacobs on teh subject of Charisma and Appearance.
So, Charisma. And by extension, all stats.
Do you see them as affecting EVERY aspect that is listed in the stat description, or just one, most, or somewhere in between?
Ex: By "RAW" (not really the right word but we'll roll with it), can you have a character who is very attractive, but abrasive, unpersuasive, very uncharismatic, and have that suffice for a low Cha character?
Likewise, can a character with high Dex also be a bit of a klutz, or a low Dex character have quick hands? Or a high Wis character be lacking in all common sense, but with great perceptive powers and so forth?
There seems to be some argument about this on a fairly regular basis, and while it doesn't really affect much, I'd like your input on the matter.
And apologies if this has been asked before. There are a LOT of posts in this thread. =p
Charisma affects every aspect in its stat description; that's why we included those things in that description.
You can have a hideous looking person with a high charisma, and a beautiful person who doesn't have a particularly powerful personality; in both cases their high charisma is going to inspire fans and followers. You see this all the time in movie stars. That said, physical appearance is really NOT determined or set in stone by Charisma... but honestly? A potent appearance (be it beauty or ugliness) is ENHANCED by a high Charisma. Two identical twins with identical appearances don't have exactly the same Charismas... and the one with the higher score will be regarded as the uglier/more beautiful of the two.
Other stats don't really have this going on, really.
Correct. High Charisma certainly DRAMATICALLY increases the chances of a character being memorable in appearance (be that beauty or hideousness), but doesn't preclude something like the stereotyped "airhead" who's super beautiful but devoid of personality, or the village idiot who is super ugly but not particularly memorable because of a lack of significant personality. (Note that you CAN have an "airhead" or "village idiot" who DOES have a strong personalty!)
Sweet, thanks for the answer. I like this interpretation, if I'm reading this right. Cha determines your appearance, but not necessarily your attractiveness? Just how striking, memorable, "Wow factor"-y it is, whether it's anything special on its own or not?
So yeah, pretty much what you said.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nice to see some acknowledgement of the "hideous can mean high CHA" idea. I once saw a post where someone said that if you've got the CHA of a troll, villagers will mistake you for one and attack you on sight. I asked him what the villagers do when you have the CHA of a snot-coated demon, but he didn't answer.
My opinion on dump stats and min-maxing
Dump stats to me are a part of the character concept. I easily allow anyone to have one or two stats dropped. Real people would also have dump stats if converted to pathfinder. I'd have a negative mod in charisma for example. So why shouldn't a pathfinder character? Taking a dump stat is not the free attribute points that some people think it is. You are still running around with that 7 strength and as a result will be barely able to carry your own camping gear. Or you will end up having to talk to someone wiht your Charisma 7 character and things will go awry.
As for min-maxing, on thescale of a whole character. To me this is purely a question of the group. If everyone is fine with it, go ahead, if most people want to rather build characters with the flavor in mind at first, you should make sure to discourage others from going overboard with their lust for power, so you don't end up with the one or two min-maxed chars eating through encounters before the others even get to do anything. (or alternatively if you raise encounter difficulty, have the less optimized characters be inconsequential to the fght, even if they actually get a couple of turns)
Another problem is the often toted caster/martial disparity. Which in a party of optimiziers will end up with the wizards and clerics and summoners hogging all the lime-light, even though the fighters, rogues and rangers also did their best to become as powerful as possible.
Were the system different, that non-minmaxed characters by nature would end up with more options that they are good at, then i wouldnt see a problem at all here. The min-maxers shine at their job, and the rest does everthing else reasonably well. They might have to imassively watch the minmaxers eat through encounters but could engage in everything else much better. But as it stands with Pathfinder, the minimizing part tends to be a lot less expansive than the aximizing, which makes it necessary to have your whole group synchronized on the "issue".
|
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait, so anything the character wants, he is denied?
simply by having a low cha?I mean you CAN still succeed socially, with a good roll (essentially under the right circumstances)
So you can't simply blanket party the low cha player for having the low cha…
Although, I guess I like the idea of "luck" being based on cha.
Well my group is of the belief that low mental stats should be roleplayed appropriately - no "I have a 7 Cha but I'm urbane, attractive, and likeable." Really it's not as extreme as some of you seem to think - more just a bunch of little things.
-NPCs who have never met the party assume the highest Cha is the party leader. They might ignore low Cha people entirely or talk over them.
-As the party's exploits become well known all the high Cha characters get all the credit. Even people who were there tend to misremember things to put the higher Cha characters in a better light. If the whole party is low Cha they might start hearing tales of their exploits attributed to a completely different party.
-If a random bad/humiliating thing has to happen, it tends to happen to the low Cha people first. Nothing that ignores their skills or abilities, just that low Cha people's failures seem worse than they are. If someone gets a drink spilled on them at a tavern, the high Cha guy laughs it off with a joke and the patrons think "what a class act." When the same thing happens to a low Cha character the patrons laugh at him and think "what a loser."
Basically, high Cha characters are movie-stereotypical "popular kids" who get away with everything and everybody likes everything they do. When low Cha characters try to do the same things it comes off as forced or insincere and just doesn't work, unless they put forth the effort to overcome their natural unlikeability by spending skill ranks.
Social life is just easier the higher your Charisma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Basically, high Cha characters are movie-stereotypical "popular kids" who get away with everything and everybody likes everything they do. When low Cha characters try to do the same things it comes off as forced or insincere and just doesn't work, unless they put forth the effort to overcome their natural unlikeability by spending skill ranks.
You can think of it that way. Just remember that a 7 is just as far from average as a 14. So, if you play 7 as a troll who is reviled on site, you would also have to play 14 as an image of angelic beauty whom everyone instantly loves.
In reality, your school's "popular kids" probably included members with mere 10s or 11s in charisma. I personally knew many "popular kids" with sub charisma.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing a dump stat barbarian and having a blast.
"So the bandits stole the thingy two days ago and it's six days away; they have over ten days on us!"
NPC:"..."
Cleric buddy: "For the love of the gods, don't correct him!"
The GM isn't being a jerk about it, and it's pretty fun.
|
Going off on a tangent here
Charisma is subject to many common misconceptions in pf. Even though every other ability score is a progression from low to high, many people seem to think charisma works on a bell curve. It doesn't.
A person with a 16 charisma evokes strong first impressions, is noticeable in a crowd, is a highly persuasive speaker. So someone with a 5 on the scale is forgettable, doesn't stand out in a crowd, and nobody listens to what they say. Demons and undead often have high charisma because they are imposing and evoke strong reactions for being grotesque. Yes charisma determines your appearance, but it is strength of appearance, not how beautiful or ugly one is. A low charisma person can be forgettably pretty and a high charisma person can be memorably hideous.
Back on topic, my 2 cents on "dump stats." I think everyone should have at least one negative stat. Flaws are a big part of roleplaying a character. Nobody is good at everything. Every hero needs some flaw to avoid being a boring superman. When I start to stat out a new character, one of the first things I think of is, what is (s)he bad at?
A good GM gives their players moments to let their characters shine. That means scenes which showcases their strengths to the fullest as well as ones which showcase their weaknesses too. That's good drama. Showcasing a weakness is all about giving that akward, often humorous moment. Its a roleplaying opportunity to play their flaw, not a punishment for having one. Bad GMs prey upon their players weaknesses and circumnavigate their strengths.
For forgettably pretty, I tend to think of the characters in a typical Syfy/Asylum B-movie. It's of course difficult to be famous for being unremarkable, so specific examples are basically impossible to come by.
For example of likable unattractive people, look at the male actors in about any Adam Sandler movie.