| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And , Ashiel, they are both "accounting for the lower score in some way" - are they not?
I think Ashiel's point was that some people will say "you must do it this way", when that is not how things are in real life, nor a rule in the book.
If someone were to say I would prefer my players do ____ as opposed to "I as the GM will push ____ upon my players with low scores because it is bad/wrong to not do so", this debate/discussion would go away.
PS: I am not saying you are one of those people, and I don't want to get you confused with what someone else may have said.
"Intelligence determines how well your character learns
and reasons."
Scalings of other stats tells us that stats scale somewhat linearly.
INT 5 person learns and reasons only half as well as INT 10.
Whatever that means in practise.
Well people have been doing so the whole thread. I repeatedly said "account for the stat in some way." At one point I gave several examples of how I tend to view them. Does not mean evèryone needs to view them the same way as long as they have something. I just don't like someone walking around with a five charisma and pretending that, without a skill appropriate to the given situation to compensate, there is no effect and they are a masterful charmer.And , Ashiel, they are both "accounting for the lower score in some way" - are they not?I think Ashiel's point was that some people will say "you must do it this way", when that is not how things are in real life, nor a rule in the book.
If someone were to say I would prefer my players do ____ as opposed to "I as the GM will push ____ upon my players with low scores because it is bad/wrong to not do so", this debate/discussion would go away.
PS: I am not saying you are one of those people, and I don't want to get you confused with what someone else may have said.
I don't think(not 100% sure) anyone made that case, and even if someone calls themselves that it does not really matter since they cant really do it in the game.
Mr Cha 5: "Blah blah I want to bed the waitress"
GM: Make diplomacy check:
Mr Cha 5:
GM: She is quiet disgusted by what you said or at least how it came out. She immediately leaves your table, and she is now talking to the bar/tavern owner who is now looking in your direction, with a less than happy look on his face.
------------------------------
Intelligence and wisdom might be a bit more difficult to shutdown.
Character with Intelligence 5: We are going to use this spell to do this, so NPC Y will _____, and then etc etc .... lays out a 14 step plan.
GM: Uh your int 5 character can actually come up with this?
Player: Sure, why not. The rules don't say I can't.
I can understand this being annoying, if the player in this case is not accounting for his intelligence in any way at all.
snipped the rest of my post. I will use it later if it is needed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well people have been doing so the whole thread. I repeatedly said "account for the stat in some way." At one point I gave several examples of how I tend to view them. Does not mean evèryone needs to view them the same way as long as they have something. I just don't like someone walking around with a five charisma and pretending that, without a skill appropriate to the given situation to compensate, there is no effect and they are a masterful charmer.And , Ashiel, they are both "accounting for the lower score in some way" - are they not?I think Ashiel's point was that some people will say "you must do it this way", when that is not how things are in real life, nor a rule in the book.
If someone were to say I would prefer my players do ____ as opposed to "I as the GM will push ____ upon my players with low scores because it is bad/wrong to not do so", this debate/discussion would go away.
PS: I am not saying you are one of those people, and I don't want to get you confused with what someone else may have said.
I do agree, things in gameplay (attributes being one of them) should be accounted for.
This thread is plagued by 'If-you-want-a-dump stat-prepare-to-get-penalised' with the attacks focused on the mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) way over the physical ones.
Having a Str 5 should be as much of a flaw as Cha 5, yet rarely this is the case.
And I do think there are other factors as well. Not just attributes, I GMed a long running campaign where a player played a Binder (3.5, he could bind tormented souls) with high charisma, but was an outcast, secretive, strange and living in the fringes away from mainstream society. Far from being charming.
Can you still be charming, even though you have a low charisma? Of course.
|
Wraithstrike, while I understand the point you are trying for with the first example, I would question the GM about why hes having the player roll a diplomacy skill roll. Diplomacy is not a seduction skill. The best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve/lesson the quality of the service you get from her. Not talking about raising/lowing costs. I am aware you used the qualifier 'depending on the GM'.
Wraithstrike, while I understand the point you are trying for with the first example, I would question the GM about why hes having the player roll a diplomacy skill roll. Diplomacy is not a seduction skill. The best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve/lesson the quality of the service you get from her. Not talking about raising/lowing costs. I am aware you used the qualifier 'depending on the GM'.
Diplomacy is appropriate, so is the Bluff skill.
|
|
Wraithstrike, while I understand the point you are trying for with the first example, I would question the GM about why hes having the player roll a diplomacy skill roll. Diplomacy is not a seduction skill. The best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve/lesson the quality of the service you get from her. Not talking about raising/lowing costs. I am aware you used the qualifier 'depending on the GM'.Diplomacy is appropriate, so is the Bluff skill.
Why?
Why?Wraithstrike, while I understand the point you are trying for with the first example, I would question the GM about why hes having the player roll a diplomacy skill roll. Diplomacy is not a seduction skill. The best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve/lesson the quality of the service you get from her. Not talking about raising/lowing costs. I am aware you used the qualifier 'depending on the GM'.Diplomacy is appropriate, so is the Bluff skill.
Diplomacy: 'using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the situation.' furthermore you can change the attitudes of NPCs with the appropriate check.
An indifferent barmaid becomes friendly on a DC 15
|
|
I GUESS you could say that......I find it a bit of a stretch.
But in my book the best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve the quality of the service you get from her. Goes from indifferent (doesnt care if you get a clean glass/mug) to friendly (might get a free refill but definitely a clean glass/mug).
Edit:
An indifferent barmaid becomes friendly on a DC 15......not......An indifferent barmaid becomes your willing sex partner on a DC 15.
This thread is plagued by 'If-you-want-a-dump stat-prepare-to-get-penalised' with the attacks focused on the mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) way over the physical ones.
Having a Str 5 should be as much of a flaw as Cha 5, yet rarely this is the case.
Can you still be charming, even though you have a low charisma? Of course.
Can you be strong, even though you have a low Strength?
Can you be dextrous, even though you have a low Dexterity?
Can you be intelligent, even though you have a low Intelligence?
Can you be wise, even though you have a low Wisdom?
Can you be charismatic, even though you have a low charisma?
The rules forbid of you from lifting heavy things if you have low STR, so you cannot be strong with low STR.
You either let this confirm yourself that because this is true, rest also follow the suit. Or you decide that there can be exceptions.I prefer it to be consistent.
|
At least you can fake physical prowess with spells. Ant-haul tripling your lifting capacity, largely make up for someone having a handicapping level of strength (level 7 lifting as much as someone with str 15), someone has low dex...he can just fly/jump (Jump spell) over obstacles or even just use spells to avoid aoO like the spell grace.
Without spells, it is definitely more complicated.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is plagued by 'If-you-want-a-dump stat-prepare-to-get-penalised' with the attacks focused on the mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) way over the physical ones.
Having a Str 5 should be as much of a flaw as Cha 5, yet rarely this is the case.
Can you still be charming, even though you have a low charisma? Of course.
I think the focus is mostly on the mental stats (and really mostly on intelligence and charisma), because the physical ones come with significant mechanical penalties. Con is obvious. Str is mostly carrying capacity, though there are ways to alleviate that after low levels.
Can you be strong, even though you have a low Strength?
Can you be dextrous, even though you have a low Dexterity?
Can you be intelligent, even though you have a low Intelligence?
Can you be wise, even though you have a low Wisdom?
Can you be charismatic, even though you have a low charisma?
Pathfinder is a roleplaying game, not a tactical war-game so there is creativity and interpretation involved.
Strength covers only a broad range of physical characteristics, muscle and physical power.
However, Wisdom defines common sense, will power, perception and intuition, a much broader range. So more is open to interpretation.
This thread is plagued by 'If-you-want-a-dump stat-prepare-to-get-penalised' with the attacks focused on the mental attributes (Int, Wis, Cha) way over the physical ones.
Having a Str 5 should be as much of a flaw as Cha 5, yet rarely this is the case.
Can you still be charming, even though you have a low charisma? Of course.
I think the focus is mostly on the mental stats (and really mostly on intelligence and charisma), because the physical ones come with significant mechanical penalties. Con is obvious. Str is mostly carrying capacity, though there are ways to alleviate that after low levels.
Can you be strong, even though you have a low Strength?
Can you be dextrous, even though you have a low Dexterity?
Can you be intelligent, even though you have a low Intelligence?
Can you be wise, even though you have a low Wisdom?
Can you be charismatic, even though you have a low charisma?
Having a Dex 7, you get a -2 to AC, Initiative, ranged weapons. For a Wizard specialising in illusions this will hardly come up in gameplay. So not much of a penalty.
So should Charisma 7 be heavily penalised, if you are playing a Fighter who doesn't really need it as they have little Cha based class skills
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to penalize players more for having low stats. I later realized I was being unfair. Yet at the same time I do expect players to roleplay a low stat. I'm not saying that with a Cha of 5 one has to roleplay the world most unsociable character. Far from it. Neither do I want to see someone expect to be treated the same as a someone else with a cha of say 16 or more.
My houserule without exception is no stat higher then a 16 with a dump stat. Take a low cha boost it wit skill points then your limited to a 16 Str. Meaning your character was before he starts the game was going out and about trying to talk to people an involve himself on a more social level. Less time to develop his strength. Characters don't exist in a vacuum.
I stick to the standard penalties given in the book. Usually though the character with the better Cha wins in social situations for having the better score and better bonus. I also expect players who take low Cha who give me a reason to overcome low cha. To actively roleplay in social encounters at the table. Failure to do so probably means less XP.
Someone in the thread said that even people with low Cha get served at stores, bars etc. Well having worked in customer service for 12+ years in a bookstore. The truth of the matter is myself and others. We put up with low cha customers because we had too and they had money. Other than that we hated having to deal with such people. If it was not the guy who had such bad BO he smelled worse than a corpse and roadkill combined. To the customers who can't be bothered to do their own research for a book simply show up and go "I don't remember the title or the author of a book. I think the cover was green does that help". Then get mad when we start asking for more information expecting us to know where each and every book was. To customers who simply behave badly in public. Yelling, screaming if they don't their way.
So yeah they may have had money we helped them to the best of our ability. We hoped they never came by again even if they had money. Nor was I being paid enough to have to stomach people with bad BO. Nor was I paid enough to deal with man/womanchildren who were adults and quite frankly should know better. One thing I notice in these threads how some ignore that appearence matters. Deny it all you like but it does imo. One can be the world best public speaker but people for better or worse will still gravitate to better looking people. It's how the world works imo. Nor do I see that changing anytime soon.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And , Ashiel, they are both "accounting for the lower score in some way" - are they not?
Yes they are, which is what I've been saying this entire thread. The drawbacks are already there. Both are accounting for them. However, what I oppose is the idea that there is only one way to play stats or that having a particular ability score means something beyond what it actually means, such as when alexd1976 made the commentary about grunting and talking like a child as though that were what you should be doing.
That I have a problem with.
I also have a problem with additional nonsensical penalties being imposed on things like requiring raw ability checks like determining starting attitudes. Frankly I think suggesting that people make a Charisma check to determine starting attitudes is stupid. Like capital S stupid. If that were how it was it would be mentioned in the Diplomacy skill, and it has really dumb mechanical ramifications, and it doesn't even make sense from a narrative point. People do not just instantly begin more or less hostile to other people because of some intangible mental-force (as opposed to more real things like what clothes you're wearing).
The rules forbid of you from lifting heavy things if you have low STR, so you cannot be strong with low STR.
You either let this confirm yourself that because this is true, rest also follow the suit. Or you decide that there can be exceptions.I prefer it to be consistent.
Factually speaking, Strength is the outlier. There are no other ability scores that set such hard limits on things except for Strength. So if you're honest about consistency, it is more consistent to not have hard limits.
Further, I find something really strange to suggest that an incredibly physical and tangible thing such as how much you can comfortably carry based on physical strength is, no joking intended, expected to be used as some sort of measuring stick for the complexity of the human mind.
Especially when it doesn't even do that with the other physical scores. Constitution is incredibly intangible for example. It provides more "not dying power" but there's no other reason other than you're "more healthy". However, how much more healthy is questionable.
For example, alexd1976 tried to mock Intelligence for noting that venerable age would "double" a character's statistics. Well have you ever looked at Constitution? The % effect it has on your character's ability to live through a beating is all over the place for different characters. A commoner has 3 HP. A commoner with 16 Con has 100% more hit points, but a Barbarian with a 16 Con only has 25% more HP. Further complicating it is that a Barbarian with 6 Constitution has 66% more hit points than a commoner and the same Fortitude save. By all accounts the Barbarian by comparison to a normal person is really tough, but the commoner can forced march longer and suffer more Con damage before he goes down.
None of this stuff is black and white. Ability scores do not mean anything except what they mean, and what they mean is written there in plain english. It's not complicated. If you want to roleplay your character as a klutzy ditz who constantly stumbles, trips, and drops things because you have a low Dexterity - go for it. However, since it's not a listed effect of Dexterity, you should not be expected to nor shamed if you do not, nor should you suffer the spiteful nonsense of a bad GM because of it.
Wraithstrike, while I understand the point you are trying for with the first example, I would question the GM about why hes having the player roll a diplomacy skill roll. Diplomacy is not a seduction skill. The best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve/lesson the quality of the service you get from her. Not talking about raising/lowing costs. I am aware you used the qualifier 'depending on the GM'.
In an actual game I might use a series of diplomacy rolls because normally such things take a longer period of time, assuming the character has any chance at success. Also there are no seduction rules in the game so diplomacy rolls are reasonable. Charisma checks are also reasonable, not that it matters for our charisma 5 character. He is likely going to fail either way.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I GUESS you could say that......I find it a bit of a stretch.
But in my book the best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve the quality of the service you get from her. Goes from indifferent (doesnt care if you get a clean glass/mug) to friendly (might get a free refill but definitely a clean glass/mug).
Edit:
An indifferent barmaid becomes friendly on a DC 15......not......An indifferent barmaid becomes your willing sex partner on a DC 15.
How likely she is to go bed with someone she just met would also be a large factor, That 15 might also be a 25 or it might be impossible.
I used to penalize players more for having low stats. I later realized I was being unfair. Yet at the same time I do expect players to roleplay a low stat. I'm not saying that with a Cha of 5 one has to roleplay the world most unsociable character. Far from it. Neither do I want to see someone expect to be treated the same as a someone else with a cha of say 16 or more.
My houserule without exception is no stat higher then a 16 with a dump stat. Take a low cha boost it wit skill points then your limited to a 16 Str. Meaning your character was before he starts the game was going out and about trying to talk to people an involve himself on a more social level. Less time to develop his strength. Characters don't exist in a vacuum.
I stick to the standard penalties given in the book. Usually though the character with the better Cha wins in social situations for having the better score and better bonus. I also expect players who take low Cha who give me a reason to overcome low cha. To actively roleplay in social encounters at the table. Failure to do so probably means less XP.
Someone in the thread said that even people with low Cha get served at stores, bars etc. Well having worked in customer service for 12+ years in a bookstore. The truth of the matter is myself and others. We put up with low cha customers because we had too and they had money. Other than that we hated having to deal with such people. If it was not the guy who had such bad BO he smelled worse than a corpse and roadkill combined. To the customers who can't be bothered to do their own research for a book simply show up and go "I don't remember the title or the author of a book. I think the cover was green does that help". Then get mad when we start asking for more information expecting us to know where each and every book was. To customers who simply behave badly in public. Yelling, screaming if they don't their way.
So yeah they may have had money we helped them to the best of our ability. We hoped they never came by again even...
The money is the reason why I said before that a business owner would still be reasonably nice to the annoying customers.
As for charisma, in the game it is about how striking your appearance is, not necessarily how good you look. You can be striking beautiful or strikingly ugly.
However in real life better looking people do tend to get a bonus to charisma based checks, at least until they possibly say something to turn it into a penalty.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wraithstrike, while I understand the point you are trying for with the first example, I would question the GM about why hes having the player roll a diplomacy skill roll. Diplomacy is not a seduction skill. The best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve/lesson the quality of the service you get from her. Not talking about raising/lowing costs. I am aware you used the qualifier 'depending on the GM'.In an actual game I might use a series of diplomacy rolls because normally such things take a longer period of time, assuming the character has any chance at success. Also there are no seduction rules in the game so diplomacy rolls are reasonable. Charisma checks are also reasonable, not that it matters for our charisma 5 character. He is likely going to fail either way.
Diplomacy definitely seems the way to go here. Seduction is a skill in reality. You can literally get better at seducing people. Making it a raw ability check also seems bizarre and swingy and would actually mean that there is very little difference between people in terms of how effective they would be at seduction (for example, an 18 Charisma character would only have a 20% better chance of wooing someone). Even then, where would you set the DC?
Since Diplomacy is about working through social issues and can actively improve someone's overall opinion of you, Diplomacy definitely seems the way to go. Back in 3.0, it was suggested that Bluff be the skill used but that never seemed right to me. Bluff implies deception so why the hell are you bluffing if you're legitimately interested in that person?
How likely she is to go bed with someone she just met would also be a large factor, That 15 might also be a 25 or it might be impossible.
Indeed. In the example I used, the character started relatively friendly and I gave some reasonable examples of DC modifiers based on the situation. If the barmaid/man had started as Indifferent rather than Friendly, most of the characters (charismatic or not) would have had little hope of wooing them after their first meeting.
Which makes you really appreciate how superhuman a diplomancer is. An NPC that's actively hostile with the same conditional modifiers as the barmaid would be about DC 30 or so. Which means that someone with a +20-ish Diplomacy could seduce one of their enemies without even stopping to raise their enemy's attitude towards them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The money is the reason why I said before that a business owner would still be reasonably nice to the annoying customers.
Exactly this. Anyone who's ever worked in retail/customer service will tell you that one of the first rules of it is to be unfailingly polite even when you're dealing with the customer from hell. You don't have to like them to take their money.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The money is the reason why I said before that a business owner would still be reasonably nice to the annoying customers.
Indeed. Plus, I think it's nice that it reflects in the game world really well. For example, you might get a respectable circumstance bonus from the GM for paying for your drinks, but someone with a great Diplomacy might impress the bartender and they give them free drinks. Meanwhile if the bartender is actively hostile to the character so that a check was needed, you have the "We don't serve your kind here!" angry barman tropes!
For example, in my campaign tieflings are generally disliked on principle. So while the starting attitude of a bartender to the party's dwarf might be indifferent or even friendly, their starting attitude towards tieflings might be unfriendly or in some extreme cases hostile. In such a case, the tiefling may very well be denied basic services available to everyone else because the bartender is an a##&#%~.
EDIT: Now someone that's more amiable might be able to vouch for the tiefling by requesting the bartender serve the tiefling as well, but if they fail their checks they might end up having the bartender tell them to get their devil-loving asses out of his tavern too.
As for charisma, in the game it is about how striking your appearance is, not necessarily how good you look. You can be striking beautiful or strikingly ugly.
However in real life better looking people do tend to get a bonus to charisma based checks, at least until they possibly say something to turn it into a penalty.
As someone who has spent a lot of time hanging out with women, I can assure you that it's actually pretty likely that some people will be more hostile towards you for being good looking. It's pretty sad really but it's totally a thing.
Kind of like how Ingrid in Skyrim will feel threatened by female PCs and tell them to keep their distance from her husband, and her tone leaves no question as to whether or not she feels a little threatened.
Since Diplomacy is about working through social issues and can actively improve someone's overall opinion of you, Diplomacy definitely seems the way to go. Back in 3.0, it was suggested that Bluff be the skill used but that never seemed right to me. Bluff implies deception so why the hell are you bluffing if you're legitimately interested in that person?
I would say that Bluff or Diplomacy could work, depending on what approach the seducer is using. A couple of the really skeevy techniques might even be based in intimidation.
I would say that Bluff or Diplomacy could work, depending on what approach the seducer is using. A couple of the really skeevy techniques might even be based in intimidation.
I'd see Bluff working in conjunction with Diplomacy for those who aren't particularly scrupulous. For example, while Bluff is unlikely to woo someone by itself it might make them believe that you're sincere and interested, which could result in a stark reduction of the Diplomacy DC.
For example, if the barmaid in the previous example believed that the risk of getting pregnant and having this interesting stranger leave her behind set the DC at +15 (which was the modifier I used based on the sample list), a Bluff check from an unscrupulous individual might set her fears at ease and drop the DC down, even if the romancer has no interest in actually pursuing a long-term relationship.
Intimidate is a tactic that you'd likely see my villains using. It's one step above sexual assault (and not even a large step) and would likewise reduce the DC since it makes them act as Friendly. This is the sort of thing that I would expect from drow actually.
For example, Drizzt's sister tried to cow him into submitting to her sexually in Homeland. The very threat of upsetting her, his superior in profession, social caste, and gender. There's probably many male drow who accept the sexual advances of their women out of fear of what would happen to them if they didn't. Given how much most of them begrudge their women when they aren't around would suggest Intimidation is probably the main tool of the drow matriarch when it comes to "seduction".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The money is the reason why I said before that a business owner would still be reasonably nice to the annoying customers.Exactly this. Anyone who's ever worked in retail/customer service will tell you that one of the first rules of it is to be unfailingly polite even when you're dealing with the customer from hell. You don't have to like them to take their money.
Amen to that. :P
|
|
The money is the reason why I said before that a business owner would still be reasonably nice to the annoying customers.
It all depends if the customer is a regular he or she maybe given more of a free pass even with bad BO. Espcially if they keep to themselves and cause no trouble. A random person who comes in and starts being rude and abusive. Most store owners refuse to help them. If they are going to spend some money at the establishment they too maybe given a free pass. Rude and they don't buy anything are shown the door. A lgs in my area has a strict no edition war policy. None allowed even if you buy stuff. Your given one maybe two warning after that permabanned from the store. No matter how much money you spent or were planning to spend.
As for charisma, in the game it is about how striking your appearance is, not necessarily how good you look. You can be striking beautiful or strikingly ugly.
Still imo the one that is beautiful will be the ones most people tend to want to get to know or gravitate towards. The ugly usually are not given the time of day. Maybe it's a sad start o affairs with humanity I don't know. When I grew up. Between the ages of 10-20 people focused more on appearaance. It never changed between 20-30 and now that I'm turning 41 I see precious little dfference. Hollywood and the entertainment industry tries to pretend that the opposite in moves and TV shows the reality is totally opposite imo.
Even then it depends on a the type of character concept. If your playing the lonely solitary person who lives on the fringes of society. Never interacting with anyone for whatever reason no amount of skill points at least at the start should make you the equal of a person who plays a more sociable character imo. Maybe second or third level. If your character is so secretive even the town or city that the campaign begins in does not know of your existence. Why would anyone in the area trust you at least at the beginning. The barmaid at the nearest tavern would at least at the start be rightly suspicious at least at the start.
|
|
Exactly this. Anyone who's ever worked in retail/customer service will tell you that one of the first rules of it is to be unfailingly polite even when you're dealing with the customer from hell. You don't have to like them to take their money.
of course your going to be told that. Who going to say "I can't stand dealing with rude people. I wish they were banned!" When my job is customer service. Now I can because I found a new job. Before then I was all smiles and cheer despite how rude a customer was because I had to be. On the inside I despised and still despise such people. Only people without a social filter or those who truly hate their job are going to openly criticize rude customers. The smart ones remain professional and take the money. Know that they can't stand you. No matter how much money you spend. Spending money at a certain place even on a regular basis does not entitle one to be a douchebag.
Let me tell you a secret. Of course they are going to take your money. Only a truly stupid person would not. Be warned though that after a certain point no matter how much money you spend at a certain place it's not worth putting up with a constant amount of abuse. Not unless your spending at least a 100$+ on a regular basis. The obnoxious guy that goes to a Dunkin Donuts an buys a small coffee every day but annoys the staff will get banned.
The rules forbid of you from lifting heavy things if you have low STR, so you cannot be strong with low STR.
You either let this confirm yourself that because this is true, rest also follow the suit. Or you decide that there can be exceptions.I prefer it to be consistent.
Factually speaking, Strength is the outlier. There are no other ability scores that set such hard limits on things except for Strength. So if you're honest about consistency, it is more consistent to not have hard limits.
Further, I find something really strange to suggest that an incredibly physical and tangible thing such as how much you can comfortably carry based on physical strength is, no joking intended, expected to be used as some sort of measuring stick for the complexity of the human mind.
Especially when it doesn't even do that with the other physical scores. Constitution is incredibly intangible for example. It provides more "not dying power" but there's no other reason other than you're "more healthy". However, how much more healthy is questionable.
For example, alexd1976 tried to mock Intelligence for noting that venerable age would "double" a character's statistics. Well have you ever looked at Constitution? The % effect it has on your character's ability to live through a beating is all over the place for different characters. A commoner has 3 HP. A commoner with 16 Con has 100% more hit points, but a Barbarian with a 16 Con only has 25% more HP. Further complicating it is that a Barbarian with 6 Constitution has 66% more hit points than a commoner and the same Fortitude save. By all accounts the Barbarian by comparison to a normal person is really tough, but the commoner can forced march longer and suffer more Con damage before he goes down.
None of this stuff is black and white. Ability scores do not mean anything except what they mean, and what they mean is written there in plain english. It's not complicated. If you want to roleplay your character as a klutzy ditz who constantly stumbles, trips, and drops things because you have a low Dexterity - go for it. However, since it's not a listed effect of Dexterity, you should not be expected to nor shamed if you do not, nor should you suffer the spiteful nonsense of a bad GM because of it.
It is true that STR is the only one with hard limits. It probably has them because lift weight is one of the few things that works best as a hard limit, variable weight limit based on d20 roll would come off as silly.
Constitution does have a big impact on health tho. If you take full first and after averages on HD, and skip 5 levels ahead, 8 CON Bard is
at 19 HP while 29 HP. 12 CON Bard is about 50% more tougher than 8 CON Bard. But I do concede by agreeing on one point you made, that class levels and ability scores do not play nice game.
Ability scores are consistent by themselves but not with class levels. Ability scores scale really well with themselves. You have 8 INT, you lose 1 learning points. You have 12 INT, you gain one extra learning points. It makes sense. But then classes come into play. You can hammer the INT down to 7, be a happy village simpleton, but then this same idiot decides at some point of his life to become a Rogue by the name of Thug and suddenly no matter how much he eats his own snot, he now collects 6 (7 if human) skill points per level! Add in enough levels and INT modifier is crying in the corner how he is made of mockery. I mean what, Fighter needs 18 INT to collects just as many skill points per level.
Low Dex will make you poor at responding to danger (initiative and innate reflex penalty) but one of those you can fix with levels. It also makes you innatively bad at certain skills, but those can fixed by skill points. Ranged attack rolls get better by just getting levels and higher BAB.
But it is all abstractions by the end of the day. "Abstraction" is probably a word I love too much when it comes to talking about these rules. Sometimes it feels like that if you crosshope between different systems too much, you can forget how the tone worked in the other ones. d20 in general is lot looser on how strictly the numbers are tied to the narrative than some other systems.
Funny note. The only ability score check that the core rulebook mentions is the STR check.
The money is the reason why I said before that a business owner would still be reasonably nice to the annoying customers.
It all depends if the customer is a regular he or she maybe given more of a free pass even with bad BO. Espcially if they keep to themselves and cause no trouble. A random person who comes in and starts being rude and abusive. Most store owners refuse to help them. If they are going to spend some money at the establishment they too maybe given a free pass. Rude and they don't buy anything are shown the door. A lgs in my area has a strict no edition war policy. None allowed even if you buy stuff. Your given one maybe two warning after that permabanned from the store. No matter how much money you spent or were planning to spend.
As for charisma, in the game it is about how striking your appearance is, not necessarily how good you look. You can be striking beautiful or strikingly ugly.
Still imo the one that is beautiful will be the ones most people tend to want to get to know or gravitate towards. The ugly usually are not given the time of day. Maybe it's a sad start o affairs with humanity I don't know. When I grew up. Between the ages of 10-20 people focused more on appearaance. It never changed between 20-30 and now that I'm turning 41 I see precious little dfference. Hollywood and the entertainment industry tries to pretend that the opposite in moves and TV shows the reality is totally opposite imo.
Even then it depends on a the type of character concept. If your playing the lonely solitary person who lives on the fringes of society. Never interacting with anyone for whatever reason no amount of skill points at least at the start should make you the equal of a person who plays a more sociable character imo. Maybe second or third level. If your character is so secretive even the town or city that the campaign begins in does not know of your existence. Why would anyone in the area trust you at least at the...
Well if they cause trouble that just tacks on additional penalties. I also see bad BO as an additional penalty, and not part of your cha modifier or score.
My point with appearance is that in the game the effect it has on you can be the same no matter if you are attractive or ugly. In the game you get no bonus points for being attractive if your charisma is a 10. Of course the GM or the player could make up something such as having the character stutter to offset the appearance for flavor reasons.
On appearance in real life: It is the first thing we notice about someone so it will always get attention. As we get older we give it less weight when it comes to getting to know other, well at least with most people I know anyway, but I won't say it hurts your chances of getting your foot in the door at any age.
|
|
Why?Wraithstrike, while I understand the point you are trying for with the first example, I would question the GM about why hes having the player roll a diplomacy skill roll. Diplomacy is not a seduction skill. The best you could hope for using diplomacy on the waitress is to improve/lesson the quality of the service you get from her. Not talking about raising/lowing costs. I am aware you used the qualifier 'depending on the GM'.Diplomacy is appropriate, so is the Bluff skill.Diplomacy: 'using the proper etiquette and manners suitable to the situation.' furthermore you can change the attitudes of NPCs with the appropriate check.
An indifferent barmaid becomes friendly on a DC 15
You know after thinking about it since there is no seduction skill that diplomacy could be used...I guess.
|
|
There are those who believe that ability scores have no effect on RP. There are those who believe that ability scores do effect RP.
which are you?
Perform (dance) with a 3 dex.
Profession (porter) with a 3 str.
Profession (courtesan) with a 3 cha and no diplomacy.
Should the ability score matter here?
.............Doesn't change the fact that giving a super-low Intelligence person a skill like Profession (banker) is really silly, though.
It is true that STR is the only one with hard limits. It probably has them because lift weight is one of the few things that works best as a hard limit, variable weight limit based on d20 roll would come off as silly.
Well, the encumbrance rules aren't for short term weightlifting either. They're for carrying truckloads of shwag. For example, strong weightlifter might be able to lift 300 lbs. over his head for a few moments before putting it down (and he or she might also use supportive equipment such as back braces and such). However an 18 Strength character can lift 300 lbs. over his head and keep it there. He can lift 600 lbs. off the ground and it'll mean he's really slow and loses his Dex mod, it's not going to hurt him to remain loaded like that.
As a result, it probably wouldn't be unfair to allow characters to temporarily overdraw their capacities with a Strength check (such as when a character is making a break check to bend bars or something). In a situation where pushing something that was beyond your push/drag came in, if it should be do-able, a Strength check to move it a tiny bit might be reasonable (though there's no such check by default, I would consider homebrewing a little chart of DCs based on how much you were exceeding your usual limits) for if your party's barbarian was trying to push a boulder just far enough that it starts tumbling down a hill or something.
Constitution does have a big impact on health tho. If you take full first and after averages on HD, and skip 5 levels ahead, 8 CON Bard is
at 19 HP while 29 HP. 12 CON Bard is about 50% more tougher than 8 CON Bard. But I do concede by agreeing on one point you made, that class levels and ability scores do not play nice game.Ability scores are consistent by themselves but not with class levels. Ability scores scale really well with themselves. You have 8 INT, you lose 1 learning points. You have 12 INT, you gain one extra learning points. It makes sense. But then classes come into play. You can hammer the INT down to 7, be a happy village simpleton, but then this same idiot decides at some point of his life to become a Rogue by the name of Thug and suddenly no matter how much he eats his own snot, he now collects 6 (7 if human) skill points per level! Add in enough levels and INT modifier is crying in the corner how he is made of mockery. I mean what, Fighter needs 18 INT to collects just as many skill points per level.
Low Dex will make you poor at responding to danger (initiative and innate reflex penalty) but one of those you can fix with levels. It also makes you innatively bad at certain skills, but those can fixed by skill points. Ranged attack rolls get better by just getting levels and higher BAB.
But it is all abstractions by the end of the day. "Abstraction" is probably a word I love too much when it comes to talking about these rules. Sometimes it feels like that if you crosshope between different systems too much, you can forget how the tone worked in the other ones. d20 in general is lot looser on how strictly the numbers are tied to the narrative than some other systems.
The abstraction is really what makes the game so beautiful. It has a really good "physics" system for a game while not getting bogged down in minutae, which means you can have this fairly simple generation system and cover countless concepts. :D
Funny note. The only ability score check that the core rulebook mentions is the STR check.
Actually, what's perhaps funnier is there's actually a few more and one of them is Charisma!
1. Initiative is called out as a Dexterity check with additional modifiers (which means effects that grant bonuses to ability checks boost your Initiative). See combat chapter.
2. During a forced march, Constitution checks allow you to keep moving overland for longer than 8 hours. See additional rules chapter.
3. Charisma is used in magical tests of will. It is used to make charmed creatures do things they would normally refuse to do. It is likewise used to coerce creatures to submit to your will with planar binding spells.
4. Intelligence is used to coerce a Sphere of Annihilation to move where you want it to.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are those who believe that ability scores have no effect on RP. There are those who believe that ability scores do effect RP.
which are you?
Both. Humorously, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Perform (dance) with a 3 dex.
GM: "Jonathan's never been one that one would describe as graceful, except when it comes to the dance. His movements while less technical than his peers are powerful and demand attention, invoking emotion in onlookers".
Profession (porter) with a 3 str.
GM: "Though Janice struggles to carry heavy loads, she makes a good living delivering parcels around the city and she knows the job well. When she needs the extra muscle (for carrying loads heavier than 30 lbs), she uses her knowledge of the job to hire and coordinate one or more untrained laborers whom she instructs and directs until the job is completed".
Profession (courtesan) with a 3 cha and no diplomacy.
GM: "Kale isn't known for his conversational skills, but he knows his clients have better uses for his mouth. His clients aren't looking for someone to take home to momma, they're looking for an intoxicating night of lust and he provides. Rumor has it that some of his clients prefer him because they can get him to try most anything, almost like he doesn't know the word no. However, he is very, very good at making his clients remember the word yes, though usually at the expense of the rest of their vocabulary".
|
|
Perform (dance) with a 3 dex.GM: "Jonathan's never been one that one would describe as graceful, except when it comes to the dance. His movements while less technical than his peers are powerful and demand attention, invoking emotion in onlookers".
See I would have gone the other way with this.
"His movements ate technically correct hislack of grce doesnt inspire much fro his onlookers."
|
|
There are those who believe that ability scores have no effect on RP. There are those who believe that ability scores do effect RP.
which are you?
Both. Humorously, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Interesting becuase I've always got the impression from your posts that ability sores are strictly mechanics and have no bearing on RP.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And you'd be wrong, because how inspired his onlookers are is based on his Perform check. If his performance was DC 15, it was an enjoyable performance and he earns about 3.8 gp / week performing. Below minimum wage but he can still afford to live a common lifestyle but with less spending cash (a noteworthy achievement for a dancer just using their talent to get by).
If he can routinely hit DC 20, he gives great performances and may be invited to join a professional troupe. We're talking big-leagues dancers here, and he suddenly makes about 11.5 gp per week, which is massive. He can live a common lifestyle and shower his friends and neighbors with fancy gifts.
DC 25? He's a celebrity earning about 24 gp a week (equivalent to about 5 dudes just taking 10 on Craft or Profession checks). He can develop a national reputation.
DC 30. People from the other side of the world may have heard of him just because of how ****ing amazing his dancing is. Outsiders from other planes may even visit the material plane to witness his awesomeness.
Side Note: I am a dancer. Took several years of tap, ballet, jazz, and clogging. I've seen a lot of other dancers, many of which were good at dancing that I wouldn't call particularly dextrous. One of the best dancers in our class had trouble coordinating which way was left or right. The technical work is the hardest to master for someone who has difficulty with their coordination.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Interesting becuase I've always got the impression from your posts that ability sores are strictly mechanics and have no bearing on RP.There are those who believe that ability scores have no effect on RP. There are those who believe that ability scores do effect RP.
which are you?
Both. Humorously, the two are not mutually exclusive.
This is why I keep insisting that linguistic ability and/or reading comprehension is not indicative of stupidity.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would say that Bluff or Diplomacy could work, depending on what approach the seducer is using. A couple of the really skeevy techniques might even be based in intimidation.I'd see Bluff working in conjunction with Diplomacy for those who aren't particularly scrupulous. For example, while Bluff is unlikely to woo someone by itself it might make them believe that you're sincere and interested, which could result in a stark reduction of the Diplomacy DC.
For example, if the barmaid in the previous example believed that the risk of getting pregnant and having this interesting stranger leave her behind set the DC at +15 (which was the modifier I used based on the sample list), a Bluff check from an unscrupulous individual might set her fears at ease and drop the DC down, even if the romancer has no interest in actually pursuing a long-term relationship.
Intimidate is a tactic that you'd likely see my villains using. It's one step above sexual assault (and not even a large step) and would likewise reduce the DC since it makes them act as Friendly. This is the sort of thing that I would expect from drow actually...
Ummm... I really hope I'm not the only one that thinks lying for sex and intimidating for sex are both equally bad?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why I keep insisting that linguistic ability and/or reading comprehension is not indicative of stupidity.Interesting becuase I've always got the impression from your posts that ability sores are strictly mechanics and have no bearing on RP.There are those who believe that ability scores have no effect on RP. There are those who believe that ability scores do effect RP.
which are you?
Both. Humorously, the two are not mutually exclusive.
Because the raw statistics are a starting point. They don't dictate anything. There is not one-true-way to play a given character. That's my point.
I just have a problem with your insistence with X score in Y ability means Z, when those things aren't established. Your position is a deterrent, a detraction, an obstacle, to roleplaying, and it is also not supported. As a result I'll speak out against it at every opportunity because people shouldn't be shackled into playing a list of 6 statistics with nonspecific numerical values that are grossly defined as meaning one thing, especially when they could be playing a character.
So the player probably wants to explain why the barbarian has more common knowledge. Why is he more educated than not? Because Knowledge is about what you know. Why does he know things that common city-folks know? Answer this question and you flesh out more of your character.
One could fluff it as being lazy too. So many cool ideas for character quirks and traits. It's not about not roleplaying flaws, it's about not roleplaying your flaws in only one right way.
Even if someone decides that they don't want to and just ignore their flaws, it's no skin off my back. They're still not cheating the system and there is no special benefit or penalty for doing so, so let 'em do what makes them happy.
My witch Agatha started the game with a 7 Charisma. I decided that this was because she wasn't used to dealing with people and the only person that she had spent time socializing with was her rather mean and spiteful mentor. As a result, she initially began the campaign rather blunt, sarcastic, and took a sincere joy in teasing the party's Paladin for his apparent bigotry towards witches. At least until she found out that witches killed his sister and cooked her in front of him. She stopped teasing him after that.
As she assumed more responsibility for what was happening involving the party she became more serious and also more open to dealing with others. She eventually became closer with her mentor, began acting with more self respect to bring honor to her family legacy, and so forth.
She also eventually became the party face because she had the best social skills out of everyone, including the PC with the 22 Charisma.
This reminds me of a scene in Dollhouse where Topher has designed a really amazing diplomat-personality for one of the dolls, but she has symptoms of asthma. The doll's handler asks him why he would give her a flaw like that and Topher responds that people that excel are naturally compensating for weakness elsewhere.
In many cases, if they didn't have those weaknesses you wouldn't be great where you are. Would be the star quarterback if you were better at debate club? My sister has a debilitating genetic disease and her doctor has insisted that she participate in exercise activities to strengthen her body. She literally would not be the great dancer that she is today if it wasn't for the fact that she has a life-threatening disease.
There are no special penalties, people don't get to look at you and know your mental ability scores, etc. You would never know that the Ranger was anything except an "extremely smart fighter" in-game unless he starts failing some common knowledge checks.
I'm just saying that there is no wrong way to fluff your mechanics in this case. There's nothing in the rules that says having X Intelligence requires your character to be a blithering idiot that drools on himself because he's too busy trying to add 2+2 together on his toes to remember to swallow.
But the beauty of it is...you can do that too if you want to. See? Everyone wins. We get infinitely more possible character concepts and deeper stories, rather than egotistically acting like there is only one right way to play Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha.
And that would be your prerogative as the player of that character. However it is not the only solution, so like I said, you may play it as an idiot savant, you may play it sheltered, you may play him as a blithering idiot, or you may come up with some other way of roleplaying it.
Nope, because it's a roleplaying game and ability scores do not determine character personalities.
This is more accurate. Charisma doesn't do anything beyond what it actually does. That's pretty much the point. Ascribing additional penalties and/or problems that are unrelated is as dumb as making someone with low Strength periodically roll to see if they're fatigued from carrying their usual gear even if it's within their weight limits. It's an invented penalty that doesn't exist and it comes off as extremely petty and spiteful.
No, it might mean he's a socially awkward wallflower trying to impress girls. It might also mean he's been hurt emotionally in the past and has trouble reaching out to people. It might also mean that he's confidence is uncontrolled and he comes off as aggressive or abrasive. It might also mean that he has self image issues and he second guesses himself constantly. It might also mean that he talks like Ben Stein. It might mean that he's brutally blunt. It might mean he's overly critical. It might mean that he's too nice and inclined to let people walk over him. It might be that he's extremely accepting of others and inclined to help people even if it's an inconvenience to him (this is literally an expression Charisma thing). It might mean he's really smart and has difficulty dumbing himself down to converse with others. He might be all that and a bag of chips but his body language is too aggressive or not aggressive enough. There are hundreds if not thousands of things that his Charisma could imply.
Summary: The mechanics do not dictate anything roleplay-wise beyond determining what your character can do. They are, however, a great starting point for getting ideas for your roleplay (such as deciding why your character is good or bad at a thing). So, like I said, both. They don't mean anything but they can mean everything if you want them to.
Win/win for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ummm... I really hope I'm not the only one that thinks lying for sex and intimidating for sex are both equally bad?I would say that Bluff or Diplomacy could work, depending on what approach the seducer is using. A couple of the really skeevy techniques might even be based in intimidation.I'd see Bluff working in conjunction with Diplomacy for those who aren't particularly scrupulous. For example, while Bluff is unlikely to woo someone by itself it might make them believe that you're sincere and interested, which could result in a stark reduction of the Diplomacy DC.
For example, if the barmaid in the previous example believed that the risk of getting pregnant and having this interesting stranger leave her behind set the DC at +15 (which was the modifier I used based on the sample list), a Bluff check from an unscrupulous individual might set her fears at ease and drop the DC down, even if the romancer has no interest in actually pursuing a long-term relationship.
Intimidate is a tactic that you'd likely see my villains using. It's one step above sexual assault (and not even a large step) and would likewise reduce the DC since it makes them act as Friendly. This is the sort of thing that I would expect from drow actually...
I'm sure that you're not the only one. However, I cannot claim to agree with that sentiment. I believe they are both bad but not both equally bad, in the sense that I think it was bad when my brother asked me to loan him $20 and told me he would pay me back and didn't, versus my brother threatening me with physical trauma if I didn't give him $20.
One makes him a liar and an ass for a day, the other makes him a mugger. Likewise, the amount of trauma that is caused to me in the process is greater in the latter than the former.
In a similar vein, some people place sexual assault on the same tier as murder. I do not, because if I had to choose, I'd take the former rather than the latter, as one robs me of far more than the other (one robs me of my choices, my dignity, my body; the other robs me of all of those things and every good thing that I would have experienced over the rest of my life).
EDIT: In a similar vein, in the Bluff example, telling the person what they want to hear is given them a false sense of comfort to get them to take a risk that they wouldn't do the possible consequences and indulge in what they would otherwise consider (in this case, it's the seducer temporarily erasing concerns of consequences). By intimidating them, you're coercing them to do something they likely wouldn't do if not for fear of the threatened or implied consequences.
One is innately more selfish and destructive than the other, or at least I feel it is. One is deceptive, the other is downright threatening. If the bard said "Oh yeah, I'm a landowner" and got additional attention from someone because of this, would that provoke a lesser reaction to seeing someone say "Give me what I want, or I'm going to evict you and your children"? It would for me. I'd think that the former was a selfish jerk and the latter a monster.
EDIT 2: Another acid test. On what scale is someone being victimized? Here's two examples, both really quite real.
1. A woman approaches a man for sexual conduct. She talks a good game and says she truly cares about him. He cheats on his wife based on this idea that the woman's words are true and he'd like to do so. It then turns out she was lying to him for a fling. He's been victimized but he's also a fool.
2. A woman forces sexual conduct on a man at gunpoint. For fear of his life, he does not resist. He doesn't even tell his wife because he's too ashamed or fearful of what she would think. He is completely victimized.
Both of these scenarios happened to one of my grandfathers with one exception. He wasn't a fool and turned one woman down. The other one, he did not, because he was too afraid he'd never see his children again if he resisted.
Ummm... I really hope I'm not the only one that thinks lying for sex and intimidating for sex are both equally bad?
Really depends on the exactly circumstances. I mean, there are relatively harmless forms of bluff ("that dress doesn't make you look fat") that wouldn't be all that bad.
The abstraction is really what makes the game so beautiful. It has a really good "physics" system for a game while not getting bogged down in minutae, which means you can have this fairly simple generation system and cover countless concepts. :D
I do not know. I kinda like the Shadowrun approach where all races have a natural limit of attributes and having them be much more core to the gameplay. Attributes, skills and the dice roll are all fairly equal in how much they affect the total outcome.
But whatever, this is no longer important.