Discussion: Are builds TOO specialized?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 389 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

the problem with any amount of rolling, is I can just retire a character instantly if I am unhappy with rolls.

with your system I would probably choose 4d6 constantly, and if I got stats I didn't feel like playing(since their in order), I would just retire the character, or play humorlessly a character that required the exact opposite stat array. 8 int? wizard, totes.


Well, as the GM who set that system up he probably wouldn't let you do that. Your options would rapidly devolve into "retire from the table" or "play a character you might not like".


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kestral287 wrote:
Well, as the GM who set that system up he probably wouldn't let you do that. Your options would rapidly devolve into "retire from the table" or "play a character you might not like".

now i can't play an 8 int wizard/have the guy never join the party?


the secret fire wrote:
hey, I'm not stupid. Eventually, it becomes obvious that concept is taking a back seat to mechanical efficiency.

Or they like that concept. Or they realize that roleplay is not solely defined by such an arbitrary series of numbers.

Like, there's got to be at least 10 ways to roleplay any given race/class/stat array combo.

Quote:
Being the smitiest smiter isn't a concept I find even remotely interesting.

Which, isn't a necessary or even logical component of having a low cha, low strength wizard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
Well, as the GM who set that system up he probably wouldn't let you do that. Your options would rapidly devolve into "retire from the table" or "play a character you might not like".
now i can't play an 8 int wizard/have the guy never join the party?

Probably not, no.

Frankly, you wouldn't fit in at his table. You'd wind up destabilizing the group-- or the entire campaign-- and causing more trouble than you're worth. Eventually, you'd either get sick of things and leave or be forced out.

*Shrug* Whether that's more a comment on you or him, I'll leave to the reader's imagination


Squirrel_Dude wrote:
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.

Really...you don't think that's fair? You realize this is not a paradigm I invented, right?

Actually, my most outgoing players quite enjoy occasionally roleplaying lumps of ground beef (and it's never that bad...an 8 lower bound on pre-racial adjusted stats means you're rarely truly miserable at anything). Having a low charisma doesn't mean you never talk. Maybe you talk too much? One can enjoy roleplaying a wide variety of different personalities. The longer you keep the same players, the better it works. It's not something that would work in PFS, or whatnot.

But yeah...it's a more "organic" style of roleplaying and players do need to be somewhat flexible in their concepts. It takes some agency away from the players in exchange for realism and immersion. I am pretty demanding of my players from a roleplaying perspective. For some reason, a lot of people want to play at my table, though I'd be lying if I said I knew exactly why. Maybe they secretly hate my stat generation system, but come back in spite of that because they like something else? I dunno.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

and here, i could just be the parties item crafter, get simple weapon proficiency, to pick up a spear, and then stab things from behind meat wall.

though, yeah, I don't get the purpose of playing something you don't find fun.

like, yay i rolled low charisma, but i don't want to play someone who is thematically not charismatic.

i still posit, that stats should only effect outcomes not how you go about things.

basically, all this really does is make me want to play a caster (if there wasn't reason already) so I can enjoy high mental stats and ignore any and all restrictions to how I can make my character.


kestral287 wrote:
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.

Ehhh...a +20 to diplomacy (in spite of a -2 stat adjustment) represents a hell of a lot of training. This would be a very high level character in my world (no, I don't let PCs blow the top off of the broken-ish d20 social skills system...sorry Bard), practically a demigod. Sure, if this character started off at 1st level as a sort of churlish oaf and set his mind to becoming a great diplomat...I've got no problem with that. There's a character in Game of Thrones who I'd say has a high Diplomacy skill in spite of a naturally low charisma.

Roleplaying isn't interesting if it's static, and I expect the characters to change a lot on the way from 1st level to awesome cosmic power. But the stats are certainly going to mean a lot at the start, and a noble struggle to learn social niceties in spite of one's disadvantages...yeah, I'd expect it to be roleplayed, but I have no problem with it, in theory. The problem I have is when the stats are completely ignored from the word "go", treated as modifiers, and nothing more. This is fairly common behavior, in my observation.


Bandw2 wrote:
and here, i could just be the parties item crafter...

That would be if item crafting for PCs existed in my world, which it does not. You're free to dislike it as much as you like, band. I realize that many people are used to the idea that players ought to get exactly what they want all the time, to include even things like exotic magic items.

I don't much care for this style of gaming. I think it engenders an awful lot of Mary Sue-ism, and sets up the delicious irony of diversity among the PCs falling in direct proportion to player agency in the creation process (in spite of the fact that fully customized PCs are all, you know...wonderful and unique character concepts).


Personally I would prefer a campaign with GM decided drops with no crafting and when I GMd a campaign I did so. I had a chart with each characters name and I would randomly give loot that was cool for each character. Such as Alchemist vests, Pearl of Powers, potions of Fly, boots of favored terrain ect.

Of course I also made sure the players weren't too behind on the basic food groups of +Weapon, +armor, Cloak of Res, Amulet of Natural Armor, and Ring of protection. That was easy because the campaign had a lot of strong humanoids.

I also introduced new magic items since magic item creation wasn't in the game. Rather than drop +1 Leather Shadowed armor I would drop a "Scroll of Shadow Enchantment" that would apply the shadow enchantment to armor.

I think characters reliant on very specific magic items to function are stupid and this method helps limit them.

If your character concept can't get by with the basic food groups+a few nice items then it's not heroic/dastardly enough to be a player character.

My position on rolled stats:
Bad for when you have a concept in mind or when the dice hate you.
Good for when you don't have a concept and want a higher power to decide.

It also depends on the group. If we're playing with the intent of running and completing a difficult scenario then I'd prefer point buy because of the level of control I get in designing my character.


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?

A six to me is slightly below the norm since some races have -2's as modifiers. As a GM I dont add on additional penalties however since the numbers are layed out in stone. If I was a player, and I somehow had an intelligence below six I would restrict myself from presenting ideas to the group too often, because once you go below six you are hindered to me. Just to be clear I said "to me". I am well aware that there is no game rule backing that statement.

PS: As an aside a character in an AP has an int of 3 and still has a PC class. He was described as not being mentally sufficient however.

edit: What would I do if a player did not RP a stat? Nothing. Some people are not good RP'ers and/or not comfortable with it.


the secret fire wrote:
kestral287 wrote:
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.
Ehhh...a +20 to diplomacy (in spite of a -2 stat adjustment) represents a hell of a lot of training. This would be a very high level character in my world (no, I don't let PCs blow the top off of the broken-ish d20 social skills system...sorry Bard),

1. What does that bolded section mean?

2. Getting a +20 is not really that difficult, nor is it really that high.

Reggie the raving dwarven rogue

cha 14 starting off

level 8

11 8 ranks +3 class skill

2 cha mod

+3 skill focus

+2 persuasive

+1 +2 headband of charisma

ok so I have only have a 19, but I assure you I can get higher. :)

Just remember that diplomacy is not some nonmagical form of mind control. Making someone friendly does not mean they will do whatever you ask.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Personally I would prefer a campaign with GM decided drops with no crafting and when I GMd a campaign I did so. I had a chart with each characters name and I would randomly give loot that was cool for each character. Such as Alchemist vests, Pearl of Powers, potions of Fly, boots of favored terrain ect.

I hand out items randomly (as in, I actually roll what they are) per pg 118 of the DMG with a chance of finding something as soon as the loot exceeds certain GP benchmarks (so 1,000 GP for minor items, 10,000 GP for medium and 40,000 for major). The caveat on this is that as soon as a properly useful item is discovered for one PC, I will tweak the next x useful items (where x = # of PCs - 1) to make sure that everybody in the party has something good before the first PC gets his second cool, random toy. There are also campaign-specific items, but these belong in another category, and are also balanced against who got what randomly.

Quote:
I also introduced new magic items since magic item creation wasn't in the game. Rather than drop +1 Leather Shadowed armor I would drop a "Scroll of Shadow Enchantment" that would apply the shadow enchantment to armor.

Mechanically, this is a great idea as it allows weapon/armor type specialization to more easily match up with loot. From a flavor standpoint, I kind of hate it, because it feels like a video game solution, and in a "real fantasy world" I'd expect to find actual items in use rather than random enchantment scrolls laying around.

Quote:

My position on rolled stats:

Bad for when you have a concept in mind or when the dice hate you.
Good for when you don't have a concept and want a higher power to decide.

It also depends on the group. If we're playing with the intent of running and completing a difficult scenario then I'd prefer point buy because of the level of control I get in designing my character.

The fact that my campaign world is a) pretty sandbox (or, at least, lots of parallel threads) and b) pretty lethal...makes rolled stats work better, I think. The players generally play a little bit of everything, and the PCs who end up being truly strong feel pretty special. It's sort of an ensemble style, and each player has more than a single PC "alive" in the game world at any one time (most players run two or three PCs), and play a particular character depending on where the camera has panned in for a specific "scenario" in the world.

This probably helps the "concept" problem, as running multiple PCs makes it more likely that at least one of them will be something close to what you really want. You may not be totally into your drooling barbarian, but when you get to play the badass Elven Ranger (or whatever floats your boat), that character's badassitude feels even more special. At least...this is what I gather. I've never played in my own campaign world, so I can only go on the feedback I get from my players.


wraithstrike wrote:
What does that bolded section mean?

It means a few things. First, it means that Bards are quite rare. I will occasionally let a player play one, but only if I trust him not to get silly with the social skills (I know what kind of shenanigans Versatile Performance can lead to).

I don't just hand out items in my game, or allow them to be purchased. Stat-boosting items exist, but are exceptionally rare and special. So, there's that. But yes, if you wanted to burn two feats on maxing your Diplomacy skill and had is as a class skill, then in that setup, you could have a +18 by 8th level. This would be a quite dedicated diplomat (two feats is a heavy price), but sure, I'm fine with it.

------------------------------------

Also, a general house rule regarding the skill. I treat Diplomacy as a contested check if the target has the Sense Motive skill (needs at least one rank of training). If you don't beat the check, you can't shift the target's attitude, at all, and failure in the contested check (not the easier CHA-based RAW check) by increments of 5 causes NPCs to become less friendly. Some people are just too wise to fall for "sweet talkin'".

The more clever NPCs become harder to influence this way. I also use 4 + Int as the minimum skill points for classes, so Sense Motive ends up being more common among the martial classes (to avoid feints, if nothing else), though without SM as a class skill, they're still easier to influence.

I think this is a pretty fair way to balance the skill. Diplomacy is still quite useful, but that usefulness is balanced by more peril if you try to influence someone who is wise to it. I have nothing against the social skills being used to affect outcomes in game, but I do think they're poorly balanced, RAW.


the secret fire wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
What does that bolded section mean?

It means a few things. First, it means that Bards are quite rare. I will occasionally let a player play one, but only if I trust him not to get silly with the social skills (I know what kind of shenanigans Versatile Performance can lead to).

I don't just hand out items in my game, or allow them to be purchased. Stat-boosting items exist, but are exceptionally rare and special. So, there's that. But yes, if you wanted to burn two feats on maxing your Diplomacy skill and had is as a class skill, then in that setup, you could have a +18 by 8th level. This would be a quite dedicated diplomat (two feats is a heavy price), but sure, I'm fine with it.

------------------------------------

Also, a general house rule regarding the skill. I treat Diplomacy as a contested check if the target has the Sense Motive skill (needs at least one rank of training). If you don't beat the check, you can't shift the target's attitude, at all, and failure in the contested check (not the easier CHA-based RAW check) by increments of 5 causes NPCs to become less friendly. Some people are just too wise to fall for "sweet talkin'".

The more clever NPCs become harder to influence this way. I also use 4 + Int as the minimum skill points for classes, so Sense Motive ends up being more common among the martial classes (to avoid feints, if nothing else), though without SM as a class skill, they're still easier to influence.

I think this is a pretty fair way to balance the skill. Diplomacy is still quite useful, but that usefulness is balanced by more peril if you try to influence someone who is wise to it. I have nothing against the social skills being used to affect outcomes in game, but I do think they're poorly balanced, RAW.

I'll give you that, RAW Diplomacy ends being Mind Control (Ex) if you really focus on it hard enough.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
I'll give you that, RAW Diplomacy ends being Mind Control (Ex) if you really focus on it hard enough.

The fact that it's an uncontested (or poorly contested) check is the biggest problem. You run into the same nonsense with certain uses of Sleight of Hand. Uncontested checks to affect other characters are poor design, and open to abuse.


Are builds TOO specialized?
When the fire mage runs into the creature with fire resistance, he is too specialized. When he uses his metamagic fireballs to kill 90% of what he sees, he is not too specialized.


GM Tribute wrote:

Are builds TOO specialized?

When the fire mage runs into the creature with fire resistance, he is too specialized. When he uses his metamagic fireballs to kill 90% of what he sees, he is not too specialized.

The idea of the modern blaster build is to go Admixture wizard so you doesn't need to worry about fire resist, or any elemental resist, really.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
the secret fire wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
and here, i could just be the parties item crafter...

That would be if item crafting for PCs existed in my world, which it does not. You're free to dislike it as much as you like, band. I realize that many people are used to the idea that players ought to get exactly what they want all the time, to include even things like exotic magic items.

I don't much care for this style of gaming. I think it engenders an awful lot of Mary Sue-ism, and sets up the delicious irony of diversity among the PCs falling in direct proportion to player agency in the creation process (in spite of the fact that fully customized PCs are all, you know...wonderful and unique character concepts).

so what exactly are you doing to stop my character from wandering away from the party? because if your forcing someone to play a character, all you do is encourage suicide.

when I first started playing ADnD, I played an assassin. I got to about level 3, before I realized exactly how hard it was to perform it's class abilities during combat. so I had him walk away from the party, off to go do his own thing.

the crafting thing was just my way of making a wizard with 8 int useful. (also, my dreams of becoming a lich are ruined ;-;)

edit: after looking at your world, what exact do people spend money on? also it feels like I DEFINITELY should be playing a caster, since charm person seems to be buffed (though you have something for that too i'm sure) and casters are the least item dependent.

basically, I just get the impression you don't like people "playing" pathfinder, you need them to "be in" pathfinder. and i don't really understand the importance of the distinction.


Bandw2 wrote:

so what exactly are you doing to stop my character from wandering away from the party? because if your forcing someone to play a character, all you do is encourage suicide.

when I first started playing ADnD, I played an assassin. I got to about level 3, before I realized exactly how hard it was to perform it's class abilities during combat. so I had him walk away from the party, off to go do his own thing.

Interesting. Sounds to me like abandoning a character who isn't perfect for you is your problem, not mine. I've never had that situation come up. I suppose your character could go farm turnips if he pleases, though. I do allow characters to retire, though not, you know...instantly. You'd only have an 8 Int Wizard if you wanted one, seeing as how you can choose your own high stats. If you have the option of starting with a 20 Int Wizard and choose to play one with an 8 Int, that's really not my problem.

Quote:
edit: after looking at your world, what exact do people spend money on? also it feels like I DEFINITELY should be playing a caster, since charm person seems to be buffed (though you have something for that too i'm sure) and casters are the least item dependent.

Actually, I try to take care of enchanters a little bit. I really don't care much for the imbalances between the Wizard schools in Core, and try to make each school worth pursuing. I let specialist enchanters (and only specialists) target intelligent monsters normally immune to mind effects (meaning not mindless undead, plants, constructs, and such...but all those other things that have mind resistance for no real clear reason). Sounds potentially dangerous or OP, right? It's not. You'd be amazed at how easy it is for a DM to balance the power of PCs when he controls the flow of magic items. Enchantment in my world is a respectable and powerful school, but it isn't OP (or any more so than something like conjuration). You might actually enjoy playing an enchanter.

I find the question strange, though. Life isn't all murderhoboing, you know. There are lots of things on which to spend money. Potions, poisons, alchemical items, expensive spell components and such - all quite useful and viable purchases. There are also, you know...the things that heroes have always spent money on - like building businesses, castles, mage's towers, dynasties and empires. Political power becomes "a thing" for PCs as they progress in level, and often ends up being a pretty big money sink.

It is possible to "play in" a world, without that world revolving around you.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
Also, a general house rule regarding the skill. I treat Diplomacy as a contested check if the target has the Sense Motive skill (needs at least one rank of training). If you don't beat the check, you can't shift the target's attitude, at all, and failure in the contested check (not the easier CHA-based RAW check) by increments of 5 causes NPCs to become less friendly.

So if I am a sincere, well-spoken young man or woman trying to be nice to people and make new friends, the wiser and more balanced the person I am talking to is, the more likely it becomes that they will realize my friendly intentions and react by developing a severe violent hatred of me?

And if they're really wise and insightful, like the grandfatherly old high priest of Shelyn, it's practically guaranteed that any attempt to make friends with this person by anyone who is not a internationally renowned diplomat will go horribly wrong?

Do I have that right?


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

so what exactly are you doing to stop my character from wandering away from the party? because if your forcing someone to play a character, all you do is encourage suicide.

when I first started playing ADnD, I played an assassin. I got to about level 3, before I realized exactly how hard it was to perform it's class abilities during combat. so I had him walk away from the party, off to go do his own thing.

Interesting. Sounds to me like abandoning a character who isn't perfect for you is your problem, not mine. I've never had that situation come up. I suppose your character could go farm turnips if he pleases, though. I do allow characters to retire, though not, you know...instantly. You'd only have an 8 Int Wizard if you wanted one, seeing as how you can choose your own high stats. If you have the option of starting with a 20 Int Wizard and choose to play one with an 8 Int, that's really not my problem.

Quote:
edit: after looking at your world, what exact do people spend money on? also it feels like I DEFINITELY should be playing a caster, since charm person seems to be buffed (though you have something for that too i'm sure) and casters are the least item dependent.

Actually, I try to take care of enchanters a little bit. I really don't care much for the imbalances between the Wizard schools in Core, and try to make each school worth pursuing. I let specialist enchanters (and only specialists) target intelligent monsters normally immune to mind effects (meaning not mindless undead, plants, constructs, and such...but all those other things that have mind resistance for no real clear reason). Sounds potentially dangerous or OP, right? It's not. You'd be amazed at how easy it is for a DM to balance the power of PCs when he controls the flow of magic items. Enchantment in my world is a respectable and powerful school, but it isn't OP (or any more so than something like conjuration). You might actually enjoy playing an enchanter.

I find the question...

I'm saying with slotted in rolls (roll in order) and i get low charisma when I wanted to be a face, and don't feel like playing what ever my stats suggest I should play, what do i do?

if i wanted to be a fighter and i rolled low charisma but don't want to play a wall flower? what do i do?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You beg for leniency, since the primary thrust of this campaign description seems to be about stroking the DM's ego, pandering to it might help.


Coriat wrote:
Do I have that right?

The modifier tilts from unfriendly to hostile (or from hostile to "boil him!") if they were unfriendly or hostile to begin with. If they're neutral or better, losing the contested check means no change (they could still shift towards hostile if you fail utterly and lose the uncontested check by 5 or more, though).

This way makes it more risky to try diplomacy on those who already don't like you (you could fail the old way, but after a certain point, it was very hard to fail the DC 20 + Cha mod check by 5 or more), and harder to convince clever neutrals, but no, it's not draconian in the way you're suggesting.


Bandw2 wrote:

I'm saying with slotted in rolls (roll in order) and i get low charisma when I wanted to be a face, and don't feel like playing what ever my stats suggest I should play, what do i do?

if i wanted to be a fighter and i rolled low charisma but don't want to play a wall flower? what do i do?

The whole idea of "playing a face" is silly, so you dispose yourself of it. You don't have to have a high Charisma to talk or have a personality. Gimli had a lot to say, and he wasn't particularly charming. You suck it up and play the character as best you can. If, after a few sessions, you just can't find "it" with the character, then you retire him, but you at least give it a try.

Not getting exactly what you want is no real objection. You probably want a vorpal sword, too (I certainly do), but the game's no fun if everything is just handed to you.


the secret fire wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:

I'm saying with slotted in rolls (roll in order) and i get low charisma when I wanted to be a face, and don't feel like playing what ever my stats suggest I should play, what do i do?

if i wanted to be a fighter and i rolled low charisma but don't want to play a wall flower? what do i do?

The whole idea of "playing a face" is silly, so you dispose yourself of it. You don't have to have a high Charisma to talk or have a personality. Gimli had a lot to say, and he wasn't particularly charming. You suck it up and play the character as best you can. If, after a few sessions, you just can't find "it" with the character, then you retire him, but you at least give it a try.

Not getting exactly what you want is no real objection. You probably want a vorpal sword, too (I certainly do), but the game's no fun if everything is just handed to you.

It's not about talking or having personality. He wanted to be a diplomat. He didn't want to interact with people a lot, he wanted to interact with them well. His stats have said otherwise. Limiting him in this way has done nothing to better the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

and the ignored bit, about how i don't want to play someone who couldn't possibly be social.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
You suck it up and play the character as best you can.

This I can't fathom. How is forcing a player to play something they don't want to do good for anyone involved? What does the other player gain by being told "Nope, you're playing that, deal with it". What do you gain other than getting a chance to flex your DM-muscles and lord over someone a bit?

Quote:


Not getting exactly what you want is no real objection. You probably want a vorpal sword, too (I certainly do), but the game's no fun if everything is just handed to you.

That's a pretty gigantic man of straw you got there. Seriously there's a huge amount of empty space between "giving you everything for free" and "can't even play the character I want".

You could fit the grand canyon between the two. Twice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
swoosh wrote:
You beg for leniency, since the primary thrust of this campaign description seems to be about stroking the DM's ego, pandering to it might help.

Or the classic "Hey GM, I brought you a pizza."


the secret fire wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
What does that bolded section mean?

It means a few things. First, it means that Bards are quite rare. I will occasionally let a player play one, but only if I trust him not to get silly with the social skills (I know what kind of shenanigans Versatile Performance can lead to).

Also, a general house rule regarding the skill. I treat Diplomacy as a contested check if the target has the Sense Motive skill (needs at least one rank of training). If you don't beat the check, you can't shift the target's attitude, at all, and failure in the contested check (not the easier CHA-based RAW check) by increments of 5 causes NPCs to become less friendly. Some people are just too wise to fall for "sweet talkin'".

The more clever NPCs become harder to influence this way. I also use 4 + Int as the minimum skill points for classes, so Sense Motive ends up being more common among the martial classes (to avoid feints, if nothing else), though without SM as a class skill, they're still easier to influence.

I think this is a pretty fair way to balance the skill. Diplomacy is still quite useful, but that usefulness is balanced by more peril if you try to influence someone who is wise to it. I have nothing against the social skills being used to affect outcomes in game, but I do think they're poorly balanced, RAW.

I dont see bards as all that powerful unless your someone found some trick I dont know about. As for diplomacy I dont care for the core rulebook version either. I use the Rich Burlew's version which treats it like a negotiation based on things such as how much the other party has to lose by helping you, your history with the other person, and how much they like/dislike you. It works out similarly to the book version, but not always. Speaking of, the book version, once I realize I was doing it wrong, it was not so easy to get multiple favors from people, but I still prefer Rich's version.


DominusMegadeus wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
What does that bolded section mean?

It means a few things. First, it means that Bards are quite rare. I will occasionally let a player play one, but only if I trust him not to get silly with the social skills (I know what kind of shenanigans Versatile Performance can lead to).

I don't just hand out items in my game, or allow them to be purchased. Stat-boosting items exist, but are exceptionally rare and special. So, there's that. But yes, if you wanted to burn two feats on maxing your Diplomacy skill and had is as a class skill, then in that setup, you could have a +18 by 8th level. This would be a quite dedicated diplomat (two feats is a heavy price), but sure, I'm fine with it.

------------------------------------

Also, a general house rule regarding the skill. I treat Diplomacy as a contested check if the target has the Sense Motive skill (needs at least one rank of training). If you don't beat the check, you can't shift the target's attitude, at all, and failure in the contested check (not the easier CHA-based RAW check) by increments of 5 causes NPCs to become less friendly. Some people are just too wise to fall for "sweet talkin'".

The more clever NPCs become harder to influence this way. I also use 4 + Int as the minimum skill points for classes, so Sense Motive ends up being more common among the martial classes (to avoid feints, if nothing else), though without SM as a class skill, they're still easier to influence.

I think this is a pretty fair way to balance the skill. Diplomacy is still quite useful, but that usefulness is balanced by more peril if you try to influence someone who is wise to it. I have nothing against the social skills being used to affect outcomes in game, but I do think they're poorly balanced, RAW.

I'll give you that, RAW Diplomacy ends being Mind Control (Ex) if you really focus on it hard enough.

Actually that is not true at all. The problem is that some GM's and players run it that way. You can get a 65 on your diplomacy check, and it won't mean the NPC will help you if it endangers and the help is against his nature.


The differences between 3.5 diplomacy and PF diplomacy are vast.


wraithstrike wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
I'll give you that, RAW Diplomacy ends being Mind Control (Ex) if you really focus on it hard enough.
Actually that is not true at all. The problem is that some GM's and players run it that way. You can get a 65 on your diplomacy check, and it won't mean the NPC will help you if it endangers and the help is against his nature.

Admittedly, it is fun to play the sort of character who's so adept at fast talking/diplomacy that they can convince (almost) anyone of (almost) anything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
The differences between 3.5 diplomacy and PF diplomacy are vast.

To be fair, even 3.5 Diplomacy only does that if you're playing with epic rules.

Part of the problem is that people use Diplomacy as "Roll to talk", which is.. weird and not what it does.


swoosh wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
The differences between 3.5 diplomacy and PF diplomacy are vast.

To be fair, even 3.5 Diplomacy only does that if you're playing with epic rules.

Part of the problem is that people use Diplomacy as "Roll to talk", which is.. weird and not what it does.

I did not know exactly what he was trying to say, but if he was saying it was nonmagical dominate person then no, not even in 3.5.


wraithstrike wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
The differences between 3.5 diplomacy and PF diplomacy are vast.

To be fair, even 3.5 Diplomacy only does that if you're playing with epic rules.

Part of the problem is that people use Diplomacy as "Roll to talk", which is.. weird and not what it does.

I did not know exactly what he was trying to say, but if he was saying it was nonmagical dominate person then no, not even in 3.5.

it was more like nonmagical charm person than dominate

charm person just makes a person friendlier towards you

diplomacy does the same thing

but i have seen too many people treat "Charm Person" and "Suggestion" as "Dominate Person"


DominusMegadeus wrote:
It's not about talking or having personality. He wanted to be a diplomat. He didn't want to interact with people a lot, he wanted to interact with them well. His stats have said otherwise. Limiting him in this way has done nothing to better the game.

I guess Tyrion Lannister should have been choked in the cradle, then. Sometimes, becoming what you want to be is more interesting than simply being born that way. Besides, if you're the type of player who really likes to RP diplomacy and is good at it, even small situational bonuses can make a big difference at 1st level, not to mention the potential advantages of having the correct knowledge skills (nobility), etc.

I'm definitely more of a "challenge the players" DM than a "challenge the characters" DM, though obviously there needs to be a balance between the two.


anlashok wrote:
This I can't fathom. How is forcing a player to play something they don't want to do good for anyone involved? What does the other player gain by being told "Nope, you're playing that, deal with it". What do you gain other than getting a chance to flex your DM-muscles and lord over someone a bit?

Funny thing is...I'm not tying people up and forcing them to come to my table every week. But I'll tell you what is gained: verisimilitude and rarity. The PCs are believable characters in a way that point-buy characters very rarely are, and characters who differentiate themselves from the pack feel special.

Quote:

That's a pretty gigantic man of straw you got there. Seriously there's a huge amount of empty space between "giving you everything for free" and "can't even play the character I want".

You could fit the grand canyon between the two. Twice.

You ever write poetry, a? Maybe you don't, but I do (don't worry...I'll spare you in this thread). In my experience, there are two kinds of poets: those who write in forms (verse, rhyme, etc.), and those who do not. Verse is actually a pretty strong constraint on content. We can't choose just any word to communicate our meaning; we have to choose a set of words that fit together because we need them all to fit inside of a certain number of syllables and maybe rhyme at intervals.

Everybody thinks he's a font of creativity when he starts writing, and yet most poets still prefer to write in verse. "Blank page" creativity is not as good as we're often taught to think. Starting with a structure around which to build a concept can lead to some very interesting things if you try it.

So, you wanted to know why: that's why.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
the secret fire wrote:
DominusMegadeus wrote:
It's not about talking or having personality. He wanted to be a diplomat. He didn't want to interact with people a lot, he wanted to interact with them well. His stats have said otherwise. Limiting him in this way has done nothing to better the game.

I guess Tyrion Lannister should have been choked in the cradle, then. Sometimes, becoming what you want to be is more interesting than simply being born that way. Besides, if you're the type of player who really likes to RP diplomacy and is good at it, even small situational bonuses can make a big difference at 1st level, not to mention the potential advantages of having the correct knowledge skills (nobility), etc.

I'm definitely more of a "challenge the players" DM than a "challenge the characters" DM, though obviously there needs to be a balance between the two.

except pathfinder doesn't exactly allow for "becoming" with the paltry 5 attribute increases. maybe if the average rolls were lower and we had more attribute gains it would be fun.

also second paragraph, I don't understand the distinction. challenging the players feels too OOC for me. like has been said, i gain nothing from arbitrary denial of playing what I want. also, i don't want a vorpal sword, I wan't to play pathfinder, with all the growing pains a character normally goes through. I don't want to be denied arbitrary choice in what character I can and cannot play. because I feel forced now to have my character OOC join with the party, as I have no interest in developing him.

as mentioned, i want charisma to NOT impact how i have to play my character, i would be fine if that was the case in your games, but being forced to a personality due to rolls is just boring and defeating. it really doesn't follow the purpose of pathfinder, which is to play as someone else you'd like to be.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
the secret fire wrote:
But I'll tell you what is gained: verisimilitude and rarity.

I'm just not seeing how restricting someone from playing a character archetype they'd prefer does anything to improve verisimilitude.

Quote:
The PCs are believable characters in a way that point-buy characters very rarely are

Or how a physically weak, socially awkward wizard is somehow an unbelievable archetype.

Quote:
and characters who differentiate themselves from the pack feel special.

Or how any of the above connect to this.

Quote:
You ever write poetry, a? Maybe you don't, but I do (don't worry...I'll spare you in this thread). In my experience, there are two kinds of poets: those who write in forms (verse, rhyme, etc.), and those who do not. Verse is actually a pretty strong constraint on content. We can't choose just any word to communicate our meaning; we have to choose a set of words that fit together because we need them all to fit inside of a certain number of syllables and maybe rhyme at intervals.

The difference here is that you're choosing to apply those constraints to yourself, not having them imposed on you by an outside force.

Quote:
Everybody thinks he's a font of creativity when he starts writing, and yet most poets still prefer to write in verse.

Well, there are many other reasons verse and patterns are used, but that's not really relevant here.

Quote:
"Blank page" creativity is not as good as we're often taught to think.

Completely true. Going from Point A to Point B through an empty room gives you the most freedom, but will rarely lead to interesting results, but you can impose the obstacles later on in the process too, and probably in a less adversarial way.

Quote:
Starting with a structure around which to build a concept can lead to some very interesting things if you try it.

Possibly, but you should still be able to pick which structure you want to build around.

The fact of the matter is, while I might be willing to play whatever and whenever (in fact that's been one of my bigger problems as a D&D player), not everyone will and I just can't see how it's a good thing to have a player walk up to you, tell you he really is in the mood to play a sorcerer, only for you to say "Nope, only giving you 5 charisma today" and sending him off.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

on the poetry thing, it's like being forced to write poetry when you are better at writing short stories, or painting.


wraithstrike wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
The differences between 3.5 diplomacy and PF diplomacy are vast.

To be fair, even 3.5 Diplomacy only does that if you're playing with epic rules.

Part of the problem is that people use Diplomacy as "Roll to talk", which is.. weird and not what it does.

I did not know exactly what he was trying to say, but if he was saying it was nonmagical dominate person then no, not even in 3.5.

The two step shift limit.

Without that you can easily make everyone helpful towards you. That's not a mind-thrall, but you could make former mind-thrall(from spells) forgive you. In PF the highest you make hostile creatures is indifferent.


Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
swoosh wrote:
Marcus Robert Hosler wrote:
The differences between 3.5 diplomacy and PF diplomacy are vast.

To be fair, even 3.5 Diplomacy only does that if you're playing with epic rules.

Part of the problem is that people use Diplomacy as "Roll to talk", which is.. weird and not what it does.

I did not know exactly what he was trying to say, but if he was saying it was nonmagical dominate person then no, not even in 3.5.

The two step shift limit.

Without that you can easily make everyone helpful towards you. That's not a mind-thrall, but you could make former mind-thrall(from spells) forgive you. In PF the highest you make hostile creatures is indifferent.

ok. I was speaking once you get them to friendly/helpful that does not make them your buddy. I do agree the two shift limit is a good addition for anyone using the RAW rules. I did not even notice it for 2 years though. I think many other people having a problem with diplomacy don't know about it at all.


anlashok wrote:

Possibly, but you should still be able to pick which structure you want to build around.

The fact of the matter is, while I might be willing to play whatever and whenever (in fact that's been one of my bigger problems as a D&D player), not everyone will and I just can't see how it's a good thing to have a player walk up to you, tell you he really is in the mood to play a sorcerer, only for you to say "Nope, only giving you 5 charisma today" and sending him off.

Now, that's just not fair. To re-iterate, my stat generation process follows. Players can choose one of the following:

1) Any stat 18, the rest rolled 3D6, in order [minimum 8 before racial adjustment]
2) Any two stats 16, the rest rolled 3D6, in order [minimum 8 before racial adjustment]
3) Any three stats 14, the rest rolled 3D6, in order [minimum 8 before racial adjustment]
4) 4D6, drop lowest, in order [minimum 8 before racial adjustment]

My players are never put in the position of being unable to build characters who can excel in their roles. If you want to play a sorcerer, you can start with a 20 CHA. The other stats are a matter of luck, but the 8 lower bound means that they will average about 12 (up from 10.5), so you're not that bad off with randomness. This is about the equivalent of a 25 point-buy, on average.

If the charismatic fighter is really what you want to play, then take 14s in STR, CON and CHA. The players still have plenty of agency in character creation, but just not quite enough to fully optimize.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

rolling almost always goes above point buy, another reason I don't like it.

also, if you want to just have the bottom limit be 8, just make it 6+2d6.

saves rerolls.

but the problem I have with your system is my favorite array is
16,14,14,12,10,8

i don't really want 3 14s, or 2 16s (which is pretty good)

ANYWAY

the point being if i shoot something and hardline for a good fighter, i might get screwed and have to play a wallflower. if 8 doesn't count for wallflowerness i don't even understand why you argue your point.


Bandw2 wrote:
also, if you want to just have the bottom limit be 8, just make it 6+2d6.

This raises the average above what it is at 3D6, minimum 8. You can work out the math or just trust me on that one. With my method, the mean is 12ish, but the median is still 10.5. With your method, the median and mean are both 13. It's a meaningful difference. I hear your gripe about too-high stats, and am not interested in making the characters superhuman at 1st level.

Quote:
the point being if i shoot something and hardline for a good fighter, i might get screwed and have to play a wallflower. if 8 doesn't count for wallflowerness i don't even understand why you argue your point.

If dropping a bit in your primary stats in order to get a 14 in a secondary stat for concept purposes isn't worth it to you, then I question how attached to the concept you really are. It works both ways.

Like I said earlier, this is a style that works best over time. The vicissitudes of dice rolling always even out eventually, and if you play a few toons, you'll get some mix of strong, weak and average (which is pretty strong to begin with). I wouldn't recommend my style for one-off adventures, and it would be a bloodbath for something like PFS, but it works quite well if you stick with it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

it's more like i find 2 16s or 3 14s boring, especially when combined with rolls. I'd just rather point buy. and i'd never pick the single 18, i find needing an 18 to be a bit overrated, even for casters.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i did the math

your method, average roll is 11.8

mine is 13.

so I see your point. though is it really that intense of a change?


the secret fire wrote:
Like I said earlier, this is a style that works best over time. The vicissitudes of dice rolling always even out eventually, and if you play a few toons, you'll get some mix of strong, weak and average (which is pretty strong to begin with). I wouldn't recommend my style for one-off adventures, and it would be a bloodbath for something like PFS, but it works quite well if you stick with it.

I really think the whole "play a few toons" thing is the core of my issue with all of this.

I like my characters. I don't want to play something weird that might be fun for a session or two, I want to play the thing that I want to play, and that I'm willing to play for-- quite literally-- years on end.

If your players aren't particularly invested in their characters, then yeah, playing something weird that dies in five sessions could work. But I like characters that are both mechanically AND conceptually strong, so that I want to play them and they can survive what my GM throws at me.


kestral287 wrote:
the secret fire wrote:
Like I said earlier, this is a style that works best over time. The vicissitudes of dice rolling always even out eventually, and if you play a few toons, you'll get some mix of strong, weak and average (which is pretty strong to begin with). I wouldn't recommend my style for one-off adventures, and it would be a bloodbath for something like PFS, but it works quite well if you stick with it.

I really think the whole "play a few toons" thing is the core of my issue with all of this.

I like my characters. I don't want to play something weird that might be fun for a session or two...

That "something weird" is going to be a lot less "weird" by any standard definition of the word than your typical point buy monstrosity. It will be, unless you intentionally make perverse decisions, quite good in its primary role, and have some undetermined degree of strength and/or weakness in its other qualities...like pretty much everybody you find in specialized jobs.

It's a tradeoff...a bit of customization is sacrificed in exchange for playing in a world full of believable people.

I'm guessing you missed the part about my players generally running 2-3 PCs at any given time, who are played based on where the action is in the world during a particular session. This helps address your concerns, as does, perhaps, the setting's general lethality.

251 to 300 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