Discussion: Are builds TOO specialized?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

the secret fire wrote:
In some languages, "mind" and "soul" are actually the same word. German, for example, has only one word for this concept, "Geist" (which also means "spirit" and occasionally "ghost").

As a German I must say this statement is utterly wrong. There are multiple words for mind, which are more commonly used than "Geist", for example "Verstand" or "Vernunft".

There is also a separate word for Soul "Seele" again used more commonly than "Geist".

You could however use the Latin Animus for your example.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
One thing I dislike is a 15 point buy instead of 20. I feel like the low point buy really encourages dump stating just to get your primary stats where they need to be.
I think this is a bit over-the-top, when you start talking about where a stat "needs" to be. If you think that a 16 in a primary stat is useless, you're losing perspective. A sorccerer starting with a 16 in charisma is still an effective spellcaster, just not as powerful a caster as she would be with a 20.

Oh you can make a 16 stat sorcerer work. You will just need to avoid using a save or suck spell on a single target. Arcane casters have more trouble buffing up and going into melee like divine full casters, and they also have a lot of fun spells that depend on saves, like illusions and enchantments. If you want to play a sorcerer that focuses that, you'll want max cha so your spells will reliable do anything.


I3igAl wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
In some languages, "mind" and "soul" are actually the same word. German, for example, has only one word for this concept, "Geist" (which also means "spirit" and occasionally "ghost").

As a German I must say this statement is utterly wrong. There are multiple words for mind, which are more commonly used than "Geist", for example "Verstand" or "Vernunft".

There is also a separate word for Soul "Seele" again used more commonly than "Geist".

You could however use the Latin Animus for your example.

Lol...hi, fellow German. I admit that I could have phrased my initial statement in a cleverer way, but you're sort of missing the point, which is that "Geist" represents an overlap between the separate ideas of "mind" and "soul" in English. That there are other possible translations of these words in German (though really, "mind" does not have a perfect translation) doesn't detract from this point.

I'd get my psychologist wife on here to debate you on how "mind" is most often translated into German by professionals ("Verstand" sometimes..."Vernunft"...almost never. That would be "sense" or "reason" in English 99% of the time), but let's not get sidetracked.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
the secret fire wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

so... I wondered why this was getting so many posts, and it's this argument again?

all stats, mechanically, have at worst a few skill points and a class skill away from being entirely covered for. In other words, mechanically in game, stats don't actually have a huge effect on your characters inept or brilliance in any given stat.

This is a mechanical weakness of the system, though, not a reason to ignore roll playing one's stats.

Yes, the game makes it possible to treat point-buy stat arrays as an equation to be maximized, and then turn around and easily cover whatever niggling weaknesses arise out of dumping through "the tricks of the trade" - stuff like Student of Philosophy, and such. The fact that we can build hyper-efficient characters devoid of believable human characteristics (and god forbid...flaws) is not an argument that we should.

my point is, that there is no single point of legal precedent you can offer for your view point. it ultimately comes down to people not liking that someone can take a low stat and not play that stat. god forbid they wanted to play an effective character with a personality not tied to stats. A character is as maligned as the player wants it to be, no more, no less.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:


And yes, having 7 int doesn't make you inept. By the same token, I wouldn't play the character as a Rhodes scholar, either. At least early in the game, or when low scores aren't counteracted by stats in other areas, like in the above example, I prefer to roleplay them.

*Edit in bold*

why not, you can play a bard, and know almost everything and have plenty of skill points to spare still. or a cleric with that one archetype, etc. there are seriously easy ways to flip stats on their heads. inquisitor using wisdom to charisma, etc.

stats literally have no connection to personality unless you make them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
One thing I dislike is a 15 point buy instead of 20. I feel like the low point buy really encourages dump stating just to get your primary stats where they need to be.
I think this is a bit over-the-top, when you start talking about where a stat "needs" to be. If you think that a 16 in a primary stat is useless, you're losing perspective. A sorccerer starting with a 16 in charisma is still an effective spellcaster, just not as powerful a caster as she would be with a 20.
Oh you make a 16 stat sorcerer work. You will just need to avoid using a save or suck spell on a single target. Arcane casters have more trouble buffing up and going into melee like divine full casters, and they also have a lot of fun spells that depend on saves, like illusions and enchantments. If you want to play a sorcerer that focuses that, you'll want max cha so your spells will reliable do anything.

10% less, must now never use save or suck, only viable at mach 10.


Bandw2 wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
One thing I dislike is a 15 point buy instead of 20. I feel like the low point buy really encourages dump stating just to get your primary stats where they need to be.
I think this is a bit over-the-top, when you start talking about where a stat "needs" to be. If you think that a 16 in a primary stat is useless, you're losing perspective. A sorccerer starting with a 16 in charisma is still an effective spellcaster, just not as powerful a caster as she would be with a 20.
Oh you make a 16 stat sorcerer work. You will just need to avoid using a save or suck spell on a single target. Arcane casters have more trouble buffing up and going into melee like divine full casters, and they also have a lot of fun spells that depend on saves, like illusions and enchantments. If you want to play a sorcerer that focuses that, you'll want max cha so your spells will reliable do anything.
10% less, must now never use save or suck, only viable at mach 10.

Difference between a goblin saving 30% of the time and 20% of the time.

In a group of 5 goblins the spell has a 16.8% chance of hitting them all vs a 32.8% chance of hitting them all with a 20 cha sorcerer. And that is before things like spell focus.


Bandw2 wrote:
my point is, that there is no single point of legal precedent you can offer for your view point.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. By "legal precedent", do you mean RAW?

Quote:
it ultimately comes down to people not liking that someone can take a low stat and not play that stat.

Heh...if the stats are completely meaningless to you, don't use them. Just re-name them "Bashing Stat", "Arcane Casting Stat", "Diplomacying Stat", and so on. That ought to clear up whatever lingering cognitive dissonance you might have about the blob of numbers on your sheet representing an actual person.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
One thing I dislike is a 15 point buy instead of 20. I feel like the low point buy really encourages dump stating just to get your primary stats where they need to be.
I think this is a bit over-the-top, when you start talking about where a stat "needs" to be. If you think that a 16 in a primary stat is useless, you're losing perspective. A sorccerer starting with a 16 in charisma is still an effective spellcaster, just not as powerful a caster as she would be with a 20.
Oh you make a 16 stat sorcerer work. You will just need to avoid using a save or suck spell on a single target. Arcane casters have more trouble buffing up and going into melee like divine full casters, and they also have a lot of fun spells that depend on saves, like illusions and enchantments. If you want to play a sorcerer that focuses that, you'll want max cha so your spells will reliable do anything.
10% less, must now never use save or suck, only viable at mach 10.

Difference between a goblin saving 30% of the time and 20% of the time.

In a group of 5 goblins the spell has a 16.8% chance of hitting them all vs a 32.8% chance of hitting them all with a 20 cha sorcerer. And that is before things like spell focus.

that doesn't counter my argument. yes you're less effective, but you do not need to entirely give up on save or suck spells.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
the secret fire wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
my point is, that there is no single point of legal precedent you can offer for your view point.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. By "legal precedent", do you mean RAW?

Quote:
it ultimately comes down to people not liking that someone can take a low stat and not play that stat.
Heh...if the stats are completely meaningless to you, don't use them. Just re-name them "Bashing Stat", "Arcane Casting Stat", "Diplomacying Stat", and so on. That ought to clear up whatever lingering cognitive dissonance you might have about the characters being actual people.

i do sometimes, in my head, they are str, dex, con, education, defensive will/mind, offensive will/mind. or sometimes wisdom is mental dexterity, and charisma is mental strength.

oh and legal precedent meaning, ANY existing evidence that a person should or must use stats as personality.


Bandw2 wrote:
oh and legal precedent meaning, ANY existing evidence that a person should or must use stats as personality.

What sort of evidence could I possibly provide here? I don't understand what you want.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
the secret fire wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
oh and legal precedent meaning, ANY existing evidence that a person should or must use stats as personality.
What sort of evidence could I possibly provide here? I don't understand what you want.

that's the point... that any argument for this boils down to someone not liking that someone else is playing a character how they want, ignoring the stats.

also note how i changed the mental stats into physical representations.

edu is how much you actually put into educating yourself or learnign new things, and how much you've had in general compared to other people.

Mental dexterity, is how fast you can react to things mentally and thus defend your mind and notice details and such.

mental strength, is how much you can push your mind onto others and favors magic that comes from your will.


Bandw2 wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:


And yes, having 7 int doesn't make you inept. By the same token, I wouldn't play the character as a Rhodes scholar, either. At least early in the game, or when low scores aren't counteracted by stats in other areas, like in the above example, I prefer to roleplay them.

*Edit in bold*

why not, you can play a bard, and know almost everything and have plenty of skill points to spare still. or a cleric with that one archetype, etc. there are seriously easy ways to flip stats on their heads. inquisitor using wisdom to charisma, etc.

stats literally have no connection to personality unless you make them.

Why look at all those exceptions to the rule there, if only I had considered them. Oh wait.

Squirrel_Dude wrote:
or when low scores aren't counteracted by stats in other areas

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed some posts and replies to them. Pejorative phrases for other gamers like "munchkin" are divisive and tend to "other" people who enjoy different styles of play. Remember that when posting to paizo.com, we welcome all kinds of gamers, and to be cognizant of others in our community. Let's keep this on topic, please.

Scarab Sages

Lemmy wrote:
What I dislike is the "you have low charisma, therefore you automatically fail every Cha-based check and every NPC hates you" mentality.

Nobody hates me, they just tend to think of me as a wallflower (which is a fairly accurate assumption).


Artanthos wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
What I dislike is the "you have low charisma, therefore you automatically fail every Cha-based check and every NPC hates you" mentality.
Nobody hates me, they just tend to think of me as a wallflower (which is a fairly accurate assumption).

And how exactly do they think that of your character before she can make any Cha-based check?

"Hey, this guy who I met 1 second ago has low Cha! He's a wallflower!"

If it's bad for players to ignore the Cha-based checks and try to use their RL "charisma", then why is it okay for the GM to do exactly the same thing and arbitrarily decide that the character failed on a non-existent Cha-based check?


Lemmy wrote:

And how exactly do they think that of your character before she can make any Cha-based check?

"Hey, this guy who I met 1 second ago has low Cha! He's a wallflower!"

If it's bad for players to ignore the Cha-based checks and try to use their RL "charisma", then why is it okay for the GM to do exactly the same thing and arbitrarily decide that the character failed on a non-existent Cha-based check?

1) Because it doesn't impact outcomes. (Hence the 'non-existent' check.)

2) Because it isn't feasible (nor a good idea) to roll checks for every little interaction when outcomes aren't impacted. (Hence the 'non-existent' check.)

Str 16: "You seem kind of strong". (No check made at this point.)
Str 7: "You seem kind of like a wallflower." (No check made at this point.)

I understand your issue, though. But it's entirely a style thing. (Your style, for example, isn't for me or anyone I know. YMMV for the circles you hang in.)


Arnwyn wrote:
1) Because it doesn't impact outcomes. (Hence the 'non-existent' check.)

If it doesn't impact the outcome, the Cha score shouldn't matter.

Arnwyn wrote:

2) Because it isn't feasible (nor a good idea) to roll checks for every little interaction when outcomes aren't impacted. (Hence the 'non-existent' check.)

Str 16: "You seem kind of strong". (No check made at this point.)
Str 7: "You seem kind of like a wallflower." (No check made at this point.)

There is no need to roll every interaction. Just liek there is no need to add penalties for mechanical choices that already have penalties.

You know what? I'm tired of this argument... I already discussed it too many times. Everyone can play/GM however they want. I'll still be pissed off if my GM ever decides my character fails at simple social interactions because she has a chance of success 10% lower than that of an average human... Just like I'd be angry if he told me my character fails all Will rolls because my character has Wis 7.

Scarab Sages

Lemmy wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
Nobody hates me, they just tend to think of me as a wallflower (which is a fairly accurate assumption).
And how exactly do they think that of your character before she can make any Cha-based check?

Character?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:


And yes, having 7 int doesn't make you inept. By the same token, I wouldn't play the character as a Rhodes scholar, either. At least early in the game, or when low scores aren't counteracted by stats in other areas, like in the above example, I prefer to roleplay them.

*Edit in bold*

why not, you can play a bard, and know almost everything and have plenty of skill points to spare still. or a cleric with that one archetype, etc. there are seriously easy ways to flip stats on their heads. inquisitor using wisdom to charisma, etc.

stats literally have no connection to personality unless you make them.

Why look at all those exceptions to the rule there, if only I had considered them. Oh wait.

Squirrel_Dude wrote:
or when low scores aren't counteracted by stats in other areas

the point being, mental retardation cannot be made up with a few levels of bard. being a wallflower cannot be made up for by using wisdom as a conversion inquisitor. and being denser than a brick can't be made up for with a class skill and a few points.

all the stats do is give statistical leanings, all of which can be attributed to luck, and thus ignored in RP.

once again, however exactly is someone supposed to RP a mental stat higher than their real word stat? let's say in RL i have an int of around 10-13, but in-game I am a wizard with 26 int, how can i even hope to abide by that level of intelligence?


Bandw2 wrote:
once again, however exactly is someone supposed to RP a mental stat higher than their real word stat? let's say in RL i have an int of around 10-13, but in-game I am a wizard with 26 int, how can i even hope to abide by that level of intelligence?

It's ultimately quite difficult, though I think the game handles this situation reasonably well with things like Knowledge checks (even at 1st level, with an 18 Int (+4), one skill rank (+1), class bonus (+3) and a library (+2), you can hit a DC 20 on every check by taking 10). That feels pretty smart, at least insofar as we associate intelligence with knowledge.

Simulating intelligence mechanically works reasonably well because intelligence is a mostly "under the hood" phenomenon. We can't actively see the process through which a person happens upon an idea or recalls a fact. Wisdom is similar, but the simulation starts to sputter when we get into charisma and social skills, which we can and do observe in action. This is where simply rolling the dice and giving the result starts to feel quite unsatisfying; we know generally how charm looks and feels. It gets harder and harder to maintain immersion the further the player's and character's social behavior get from one another, in either direction (this covers both the wallflower playing a Bard and the socially competent person playing a Cha-dumped Wizard).

That's just how it be. Some people don't care; others do.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, the character says what they say, the charisma comes into play on how it comes off. In real life, two different people can give the same exact speech and on one person it comes off moving as heck and on the other it comes off as 'meh' or even somewhat silly. That is where charisma(and social skills) come in,

On the other hand, as a nod towards Lemmy .... Your low charisma doesn't generally come into play buying eggs and milk at the supermarket., or indeed in places where you generally aren't trying to significantly influence people, and there your social ability is (stat bonus(innate) + skill(trained)) not just your stat bonus. It's a package deal. Same with intelligence, really.

I know a guy who is autistic. He is smart(very actually) but lacks natural social skills. He has pretty much intellectually TAUGHT himself improved social skills though, how to look for social cues, how to read and react to them. It's processing intellectually what allot of people can process naturally, yet it still is processing them either way. I think denying people the benefit of their training in determining how they come off socially is off. Even if someone has a five charisma, but they take a skill point in bluff, diplomacy and such, then then they have taught themselves to be slightly above the norm in social interactions. Granted, a person who didn't have those negatives and took the exact same skills would be significantly ahead of them, but someone else being farther ahead of you doesn't actually mean you are behind.

Besides, really, to at least some extent what we think of as charisma or social skill in the modern world really almost needs to include wisdom(sense motive) for example. Being able to read people in order to figure out how to react appropriately is the crux of many social situations. So it isn't as simple as "low charisma = complete social ogre"

However, if you have a five charisma and don't have the stats to compensate and try to give inspiring speeches like Winston Churchill, it's going to come off rather flat( - even if you use the exact same words - as will be reflected in your rolls, no doubt)


Lemmy wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
1) Because it doesn't impact outcomes. (Hence the 'non-existent' check.)

If it doesn't impact the outcome, the Cha score shouldn't matter.

Arnwyn wrote:

2) Because it isn't feasible (nor a good idea) to roll checks for every little interaction when outcomes aren't impacted. (Hence the 'non-existent' check.)

Str 16: "You seem kind of strong". (No check made at this point.)
Str 7: "You seem kind of like a wallflower." (No check made at this point.)

There is no need to roll every interaction. Just liek there is no need to add penalties for mechanical choices that already have penalties.

You know what? I'm tired of this argument... I already discussed it too many times. Everyone can play/GM however they want. I'll still be pissed off if my GM ever decides my character fails at simple social interactions because she has a chance of success 10% lower than that of an average human... Just like I'd be angry if he told me my character fails all Will rolls because my character has Wis 7.

I wouldn't have an auto fail, on the other hand there are places where you might no longer auto succeed and still have to roll. Say it's a "take ten" type situation, if you have a charisma + skill such that your average is no longer ten you might have to roll, but no additional penalties to that roll. (In other words, if you have a five charisma you might find yourself rolling in some places where a higher combined bonus might be able to just skate by without a roll)


Bandw2 wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:


And yes, having 7 int doesn't make you inept. By the same token, I wouldn't play the character as a Rhodes scholar, either. At least early in the game, or when low scores aren't counteracted by stats in other areas, like in the above example, I prefer to roleplay them.

*Edit in bold*

why not, you can play a bard, and know almost everything and have plenty of skill points to spare still. or a cleric with that one archetype, etc. there are seriously easy ways to flip stats on their heads. inquisitor using wisdom to charisma, etc.

stats literally have no connection to personality unless you make them.

Why look at all those exceptions to the rule there, if only I had considered them. Oh wait.

Squirrel_Dude wrote:
or when low scores aren't counteracted by stats in other areas
the point being, mental retardation cannot be made up with a few levels of bard. being a wallflower cannot be made up for by using wisdom as a conversion inquisitor. and being denser than a brick can't be made up for with a class skill and a few points.

I never claimed they could be, or that's what exceptionally low stats would be representative of.

Quote:

All the stats do is give statistical leanings, all of which can be attributed to luck, and thus ignored in RP.

Once again, however exactly is someone supposed to RP a mental stat higher than their real word stat? let's say in RL i have an int of around 10-13, but in-game I am a wizard with 26 int, how can i even hope to abide by that level of intelligence?

This is dumb, and follows the same logic of people who clamor that certain stupid powers for martial characters aren't broken because Wish exists.

Yes, at a certain point you have to rely on mechanics to represent character knowledge and ability because the characters wisdom and intelligence surpass levels of any human to have ever existed. That doesn't mean that when players could feasibly roleplay those scores they have absolutely no obligation to, especially when they have done nothing to represent their character overcoming their lack of natural talent.

I also appreciate when people keep bringing up "mental retardation," when I've explicitly said that 7 or 5 int/wis/cha doesn't represent autism or some other kind of mental disability.


Out of curiosity, why can't that go the other way? What if Jimmy, as a role-player, cannot feasibly roleplay a Cha of 5?


kestral287 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why can't that go the other way? What if Jimmy, as a role-player, cannot feasibly roleplay a Cha of 5?

I don't buy it. Anybody can play a jerk or, at worst, a wallflower (hint: don't speak).


And the latter case would pretty much lock somebody out of much of the game. But apply it to whichever stat you like-- I've seen it with Int in particular. The question stands though.


kestral287 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why can't that go the other way? What if Jimmy, as a role-player, cannot feasibly roleplay a Cha of 5?

If wouldn't ask a player to do something that they couldn't do.


Lucy_Valentine wrote:

Lets say your character is cha 7, but you play them as really suave and charming. The mechanics say they're at -2, and you fail a lot of rolls. So how are they suave and charming and yet failing all the time? There's a contradiction.

That Easy your character with a Char of 7 who think he suave and charming is Pepe La Pew.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why can't that go the other way? What if Jimmy, as a role-player, cannot feasibly roleplay a Cha of 5?
If wouldn't ask a player to do something that they couldn't do.

And to me this is where things start to fall apart. Is there that much of a difference between Jimmy, who can't RP a Cha of 5 (for whatever reason) and Timmy, who just really doesn't want to RP an Int of 9?

*Shrug* Maybe I'm trying to look at something objectively that others are trying to look at subjectively. To me it seems like there should be a clear-cut "When I'm GMing, a character with a Cha of 7 isn't be allowed to act this way but a character with a Cha of 10 can and a character with a Cha of 17 really can." If a GM can't provide that sort of thing, that it sounds too much like "Well I don't like your character build so I'm going to subjectively punish you for it".


Well, yeah, that's one of the reasons it's important for DMs and players to communicate their expectations.


And yet, it seems like I'm having a hard time getting clear-cut expectations from the people in this thread. Or maybe I'm just not asking the right questions, so I'll come out and ask the obvious way: What are your expectations regarding RPing stats as a GM?


kestral287 wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why can't that go the other way? What if Jimmy, as a role-player, cannot feasibly roleplay a Cha of 5?
If wouldn't ask a player to do something that they couldn't do.
And to me this is where things start to fall apart. Is there that much of a difference between Jimmy, who can't RP a Cha of 5 (for whatever reason) and Timmy, who just really doesn't want to RP an Int of 9?

Yes. If Timmy doesn't want to do that, he should have chosen to not play a character with 9 int.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why can't that go the other way? What if Jimmy, as a role-player, cannot feasibly roleplay a Cha of 5?
If wouldn't ask a player to do something that they couldn't do.
And to me this is where things start to fall apart. Is there that much of a difference between Jimmy, who can't RP a Cha of 5 (for whatever reason) and Timmy, who just really doesn't want to RP an Int of 9?
Yes. If Timmy doesn't want to do that, he should have chosen to not play a character with 9 int.

But he'd be okay if he dropped that Int all the way down to 5 and told his GM "I can't feasibly roleplay an Int of 5"?


kestral287 wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why can't that go the other way? What if Jimmy, as a role-player, cannot feasibly roleplay a Cha of 5?
If wouldn't ask a player to do something that they couldn't do.

And to me this is where things start to fall apart. Is there that much of a difference between Jimmy, who can't RP a Cha of 5 (for whatever reason) and Timmy, who just really doesn't want to RP an Int of 9?

*Shrug* Maybe I'm trying to look at something objectively that others are trying to look at subjectively. To me it seems like there should be a clear-cut "When I'm GMing, a character with a Cha of 7 isn't be allowed to act this way but a character with a Cha of 10 can and a character with a Cha of 17 really can." If a GM can't provide that sort of thing, that it sounds too much like "Well I don't like your character build so I'm going to subjectively punish you for it".

A good example of that in real life. The High Cha star athlete in High School grabs the prom Queen and give here a Hug and she laughs. The Low Cha Geek does the same thing and she calls the cops


Degoon Squad wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Out of curiosity, why can't that go the other way? What if Jimmy, as a role-player, cannot feasibly roleplay a Cha of 5?
If wouldn't ask a player to do something that they couldn't do.

And to me this is where things start to fall apart. Is there that much of a difference between Jimmy, who can't RP a Cha of 5 (for whatever reason) and Timmy, who just really doesn't want to RP an Int of 9?

*Shrug* Maybe I'm trying to look at something objectively that others are trying to look at subjectively. To me it seems like there should be a clear-cut "When I'm GMing, a character with a Cha of 7 isn't be allowed to act this way but a character with a Cha of 10 can and a character with a Cha of 17 really can." If a GM can't provide that sort of thing, that it sounds too much like "Well I don't like your character build so I'm going to subjectively punish you for it".

A good example of that in real life. The High Cha star athlete in High School grabs the prom Queen and give here a Hug and she laughs. The Low Cha Geek does the same thing and she calls the cops

And that's something that, in the game, you'd roll a die for and the High Cha player is much more likely to make the DC. Not really the same thing. If it affects the game, it needs to be decided by die roll-- that's what we have skills and attribute checks for, non? Unless the GM fundamentally alters the game rules, the 'geek' with a Cha of 5 is entitled to roll his die just like the athlete.

If the GM is fundamentally altering game rules to that degree, we start looking at a very different game, because my immediate response would be to start casting save-or-sucks everywhere and arguing that X gets no save because their stat is too low. If it applies for one die roll it applies for them all.

Or we're (as I've been assuming) really only looking at this for situations that aren't significant enough to bring out the dice... in which case we simultaneously have a situation important enough to penalize Timmy but not important enough to actually use rules for. That seems contradictory.


kestral287 wrote:
And yet, it seems like I'm having a hard time getting clear-cut expectations from the people in this thread. Or maybe I'm just not asking the right questions, so I'll come out and ask the obvious way: What are your expectations regarding RPing stats as a GM?

Roleplay all of them, to the best of your ability or comfort level. Try to match your fluff, in character behavior and mechanics as well as you can. For example, if you want to play a character with the drawback "paranoid," so you can get another trait, that's fine. I also expect your character to actually roleplay being paranoid. I don't see fluff text as totally separate from rules text.

If, as a player, you have issue with fluff text because it doesn't appeal to you, is causing problems, or would for some reason lock you out of ability (somehow, I don't know), approach me as a GM with some refluffing ideas and we'll find a solution that should work in the long run.

I don't expect perfect characters who's fluff and mechanics blend so perfectly as to give me technicolor visions of a utopian dreamworld when play begins, but I'd rather see a enthused failure at it than a dull abstention from it.

kestral287 wrote:
But he'd be okay if he dropped that Int all the way down to 5 and told his GM "I can't feasibly roleplay an Int of 5"?

Would that be weird? Yeah. I guess. I'd ask him to role play as close to it as he'd feel comfortable, doing, I guess.


kestral287 wrote:
And yet, it seems like I'm having a hard time getting clear-cut expectations from the people in this thread. Or maybe I'm just not asking the right questions, so I'll come out and ask the obvious way: What are your expectations regarding RPing stats as a GM?

I expect them to be roleplayed, period. I don't view stats as simply ability modifiers, but rather as rough sketches of the character's...for lack of a better word...essence.

I'm ok with a 7 Cha character being played as pretty normal socially or even as a smooth-talker who happens to be repellant in some other way (Cyrano de Bergerac was actually a really interesting character). I'm not ok seeing this done multiple times by the same player with the same class.

What I want, ultimately, is for concept to come first, and mechanics second. Efficiency is fine by me, but when I see a series of characters, one after the next, of the same class and with the same dump stats...hey, I'm not stupid. Eventually, it becomes obvious that concept is taking a back seat to mechanical efficiency. People can play however they want, but that doesn't fly at my table. Being the smitiest smiter isn't a concept I find even remotely interesting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
my point is, that there is no single point of legal precedent you can offer for your view point.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here. By "legal precedent", do you mean RAW?

Quote:
it ultimately comes down to people not liking that someone can take a low stat and not play that stat.
Heh...if the stats are completely meaningless to you, don't use them. Just re-name them "Bashing Stat", "Arcane Casting Stat", "Diplomacying Stat", and so on. That ought to clear up whatever lingering cognitive dissonance you might have about the blob of numbers on your sheet representing an actual person.

It would be more honest, but we're stuck with the stupid and misleading terminology Gygax propounded.

INT is not intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to solve problems and construct logical arguments. INT is rote knowledge: The stuff of idiot savants.

WIS is not wisdom. Wisdom is the ability to make wise decisions. WIS is the ability to see and hear clearly, balance accounts, and be favored of a god (unless you're a paladin or oracle because Paizo knows the mental stats are pure hogwash even if they don't want to admit it openly).

CHA is not charisma. In what bizzaro universe do people get more charismatic when they're past their prime and running to fat? In what bizzaro universe, for that matter, are intimidation and diplomacy easy for the same kinds of people? And what does any of that have to do with using magic devices or casting spells?

Dark Archive

kestral287 wrote:
And yet, it seems like I'm having a hard time getting clear-cut expectations from the people in this thread. Or maybe I'm just not asking the right questions, so I'll come out and ask the obvious way: What are your expectations regarding RPing stats as a GM?

The characters are not mine: they are my players'. I give them free reign to roleplay their characters the way they like - because if I was in charge of that, I'd be writing a book, not playing a game with my friends. The game already has negative penalties for having dump stats. I dont need to do anything else.

Hell, my players are harsher on themselves with what stats mean than what I'd have them do. Which is totally okay, because it's their choice.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Squirrel_Dude wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
stuff

I never claimed they could be, or that's what exceptionally low stats would be representative of.

Quote:

All the stats do is give statistical leanings, all of which can be attributed to luck, and thus ignored in RP.

Once again, however exactly is someone supposed to RP a mental stat higher than their real word stat? let's say in RL i have an int of around 10-13, but in-game I am a wizard with 26 int, how can i even hope to abide by that level of intelligence?

This is dumb, and follows the same logic of people who clamor that certain stupid powers for martial characters aren't broken because Wish exists.

Yes, at a certain point you have to rely on mechanics to represent character knowledge and ability because the characters wisdom and intelligence surpass levels of any human to have ever existed. That doesn't mean that when...

a 7 int is made up for by being in a library

having no obligation to play higher stats, and yet needing people to actively represent lower end stats.

mechanically the game suggests that most stats of 3 are EASILY made up for, why exactly do you need a player to rigorously maintain an air of low charisma or low wisdom or what ever stat is lower?

previously I posted what mechanically the stats seem to represent, and they're "physical" limits and not named to trigger people to think their personality or behavior are effected by them.

charisma isn't even really a constituent of charisma in-game, it is the ability to enforce your will out of your mind. hence, magic can also be based on it, and why lower charisma makes a character easier to diplomacy. mental strength

Wisdom, is more like mental dexterity, it's your quickness to react to things mentally. Perception to notice an ambush and react to it, receiving the power granted from gods, or noticing the small inconsistencies in someones language or posture. mental dexterity

Intelligence, only seems to effect things you learned, it seems to be more of a mental resilience, as it lets you resist information overload and makes your memories more firm and easier to remember. Able to hold more arcane energies in your mind for casting. mental constitution.

you might go "that's just opinion" but no that's mechanically what they do.

you talent effects your outcomes, not how you try to do things.


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
And yet, it seems like I'm having a hard time getting clear-cut expectations from the people in this thread. Or maybe I'm just not asking the right questions, so I'll come out and ask the obvious way: What are your expectations regarding RPing stats as a GM?

Roleplay all of them, to the best of your ability or comfort level. Try to match your fluff, in character behavior and mechanics as well as you can. For example, if you want to play a character with the drawback "paranoid," so you can get another trait, that's fine. I also expect your character to actually roleplay being paranoid. I don't see fluff text as totally separate from rules text.

If, as a player, you have issue with fluff text because it doesn't appeal to you, is causing problems, or would for some reason lock you out of ability (somehow, I don't know), approach me as a GM with some refluffing ideas and we'll find a solution that should work in the long run.

I don't expect perfect characters who's fluff and mechanics blend so perfectly as to give me technicolor visions of a utopian dreamworld when play begins, but I'd rather see a enthused failure at it than a dull abstention from it.

kestral287 wrote:
But he'd be okay if he dropped that Int all the way down to 5 and told his GM "I can't feasibly roleplay an Int of 5"?
Would that be weird? Yeah. I guess. I'd ask him to role play as close to it as he'd feel comfortable, doing, I guess.

This, I like, understand, and can get behind.

the secret fire wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
And yet, it seems like I'm having a hard time getting clear-cut expectations from the people in this thread. Or maybe I'm just not asking the right questions, so I'll come out and ask the obvious way: What are your expectations regarding RPing stats as a GM?

I expect them to be roleplayed, period. I don't view stats as simply ability modifiers, but rather as rough sketches of the character's...for lack of a better word...essence.

I'm ok with a 7 Cha character being played as pretty normal socially or even as a smooth-talker who happens to be repellant in some other way (Cyrano de Bergerac was actually a really interesting character). I'm not ok seeing this done multiple times by the same player with the same class.

What I want, ultimately, is for concept to come first, and mechanics second. Efficiency is fine by me, but when I see a series of characters, one after the next, of the same class and with the same dump stats...hey, I'm not stupid. Eventually, it becomes obvious that concept is taking a back seat to mechanical efficiency. People can play however they want, but that doesn't fly at my table. Being the smitiest smiter isn't a concept I find even remotely interesting.

I guess my problem here is that this comes off as much more... aggressive? Confrontational? Than Squirrel Dude's post above does; his is "hey, this is a role-play game" and yours seems more "dump stats are terrible things and people who use them are bad people". And, frankly, it seems like it's full of holes, because the way I'm reading this-- and please, correct me if I'm wrong-- is that you're looking at the stats instead of the full character, and then judging the full character based on that limited look. Stats are part of a character, sure. But so are traits, and drawbacks, and skill points, and feats, and more.

It also seems-- and again, if I'm wrong then educate me-- that you're looking at the raw numbers to find that 'essence' rather than how they interact on the whole. When I posted a bit of one of my characters earlier-- the one with 11 Cha as her lowest stat when the average was a 16, and I played her as a low-Cha character-- one of your comments was that she 'had' to have some redeeming quality to her Cha. That maybe she was pretty or some such. And I... can't understand that, honestly. At that point it's no longer a case of concept vs. mechanics-- the only differential between the two is that her Cha is being portrayed lower than what it 'should' be, whereas all of your core complaints seem to be aimed at playing them higher. So I'm still having trouble understanding exactly where you're coming from on this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:


What I want, ultimately, is for concept to come first, and mechanics second. Efficiency is fine by me, but when I see a series of characters, one after the next, of the same class and with the same dump stats...hey, I'm not stupid. Eventually, it becomes obvious that concept is taking a back seat to mechanical efficiency.

The only problem is that that's exactly what you see when you walk into a Google laboratory or down the O-line of a football team in the real world.

The people who are successful at a job/profession/hobby are typically the people who have the raw talent at that profession. If you're going to be a professional software engineer or chemist, you need certain mental and physical attributes, which are different than the ones that you need to be an offensive guard in the NFL. If you can't bench press 225 pounds even once, you're not going to be a good football player -- the guys who make the team can do at least 20 reps.

Conversely, if you can't answer "how digits are there in 57 to the 35th" with reasonable accuracy, you're not going to be crunching code for Google. And if you can't make even the interviewer feel at ease with you, you're not going to be selling cars for Michaelis Chevrolet.

And this is in the real world, where people aren't constructed on a point buy system.

So, while, you may find the concept of a weak, clumsy football player to be interesting, neither your coach nor your teammates would.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
the secret fire wrote:


What I want, ultimately, is for concept to come first, and mechanics second. Efficiency is fine by me, but when I see a series of characters, one after the next, of the same class and with the same dump stats...hey, I'm not stupid. Eventually, it becomes obvious that concept is taking a back seat to mechanical efficiency.

The only problem is that that's exactly what you see when you walk into a Google laboratory or down the O-line of a football team in the real world.

The people who are successful at a job/profession/hobby are typically the people who have the raw talent at that profession. If you're going to be a professional software engineer or chemist, you need certain mental and physical attributes, which are different than the ones that you need to be an offensive guard in the NFL. If you can't bench press 225 pounds even once, you're not going to be a good football player -- the guys who make the team can do at least 20 reps.

Conversely, if you can't answer "how digits are there in 57 to the 35th" with reasonable accuracy, you're not going to be crunching code for Google. And if you can't make even the interviewer feel at ease with you, you're not going to be selling cars for Michaelis Chevrolet.

And this is in the real world, where people aren't constructed on a point buy system.

So, while, you may find the concept of a weak, clumsy football player to be interesting, neither your coach nor your teammates would.

not only this but if you have non-optimal stats for a class, more than likely you're going to be a different class. if you have high charisma and low wisdom, your an oracle/paladin not a cleric/inquisitor.


kestral287 wrote:
And, frankly, it seems like it's full of holes, because the way I'm reading this-- and please, correct me if I'm wrong-- is that you're looking at the stats instead of the full character, and then judging the full character based on that limited look. Stats are part of a character, sure. But so are traits, and drawbacks, and skill points, and feats, and more.

With the possible exception of a few 1st level feats, feats and skills are a matter of training. I'm not going to quibble with how a character has been trained.

Stats, traits and drawbacks (which I don't use) are another matter. Yes, I take issue with traits not being roleplayed (or the same traits always being picked). My solution for this is simply to ban the clearly dominant options among the traits, like the initiative-boosters, most of the metamagic and other assorted stuff like Student of Philosophy. The traits are one of the worst balanced aspects of Pathfinder, actually, and because they are expressly both mechanics and fluff, this lack of balance encourages non-roleplaying almost as much as point buy stat arrays.

I'll answer how I solve the problem of stats in reply to Orfamay.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

And this is in the real world, where people aren't constructed on a point buy system.

So, while, you may find the concept of a weak, clumsy football player to be interesting, neither your coach nor your teammates would.

My solution to the problem of stats and min-maxing of point buy arrays can be found in the OP here:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ri4f?Generating-Stats-tricks-and-preferences

Basically, having high stats in your primary area of strength is realistic; having perfectly optimized stats is not. So I let my players choose the values in their primary stats, and leave the rest to chance. My offensive lines are made up of big, strong, nimble boys, but they're not all equal in the other areas of their lives, sort of like...real people.

Ultimately, the problem of min-maxing and "powergaming" (or whatever other word you want to use) is as much a problem for the developers as it is for the DMs and players. Structural, mechanical decisions in game design can either encourage or discourage min-maxing. Sadly, Pathfinder is still a game that encourages min-maxing to a large extent, but it's not that hard to re-write the rules in places where there is strong encouragement to min-max at the expense of roleplaying, if one has the will to do so.


the secret fire wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
And, frankly, it seems like it's full of holes, because the way I'm reading this-- and please, correct me if I'm wrong-- is that you're looking at the stats instead of the full character, and then judging the full character based on that limited look. Stats are part of a character, sure. But so are traits, and drawbacks, and skill points, and feats, and more.
With the possible exception of a few 1st level feats, feats and skills are a matter of training. I'm not going to quibble with how a character has been trained.

You don't quibble with skills/feats... But a character with 7 Cha and a +20 to Diplomacy is still not allowed to role-play as a guy who can pick up ladies? That seems... very out there and very contrary to what happens when he asks for a roll.


the secret fire wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
And yet, it seems like I'm having a hard time getting clear-cut expectations from the people in this thread. Or maybe I'm just not asking the right questions, so I'll come out and ask the obvious way: What are your expectations regarding RPing stats as a GM?
Eventually, it becomes obvious that concept is taking a back seat to mechanical efficiency. People can play however they want, but that doesn't fly at my table. Being the smitiest smiter isn't a concept I find even remotely interesting.

What you find interesting isn't relevant. If someone wants to play a big, dumb, savage barbarian that just wants to fight things, they should be free to optimize and min-max that however they want. They could play that for 20 straight campaigns if they wanted. Just ask them to try and roleplay the dumb and savage parts of their character.

Quote:
Basically, having high stats in your primary area of strength is realistic; having perfectly optimized stats is not. So I let my players choose the values in their primary stats, and leave the rest to chance. My offensive lines are made up of big, strong, nimble boys, but they're not all equal in the other areas of their lives, sort of like...real people.

I don't think it's be fair to say "you have to roleplay your stats," followed by saying "but you don't have control over those stats." Your outgoing and social players better hope they don't get stuck with low charisma characters who won't be able to talk, I guess. Also, as a player, I don't think I'd be able to tell you what character concept I was going for before I saw what my ability scores were going to be, so I wouldn't be able to tell you what my primary stats would be.

201 to 250 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Discussion: Are builds TOO specialized? All Messageboards