[PaizoCon] "The Future of Pathfinder"


Second Edition

101 to 150 of 220 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

The Hero Point thing also has potential, though I'd start at a base of 2 Hero Points rather than 1 for various reasons.

I thought about +2. It has the advantage of giving Cha 8 characters a Heropoint and allows a Cha 10 character to spend one while keeping one for death scenarios. I went with +1 initially as I felt having two at Cha 10 or three at Cha 12 didn't really give much of a reason to have Cha 12 (two is enough to not have a fundamental game-play shift.) With +1 you have a real incentive to get to Cha 12, and once you get to 12 you might consider investing into 14 as the second part (use Cha instead of other stat) begins to become valuable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Another possibility would be tying the number of attuned items to Charisma...maybe 7 or 8 + Charisma Mod. That reclaims some of the Resonance use of Charisma without the annoyance, though it's admittedly a niche use.

The problem is less that it's niche and more that it's completely unimportant until you get a large number of wearable magic items, something that might never happen to many characters. Most games are relatively low level, I can't imagine running into that limit any time before level 10 at the earliest.


I was wondering if house ruling the number of magical items to level/2 rounded up might be interesting/a viable houserule.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ramanujan wrote:
I was wondering if house ruling the number of magical items to level/2 rounded up might be interesting/a viable houserule.

I was thinking something similar — having the number of attunement slots be lvl/2 + Cha or lvl/3 + Cha.


Roswynn wrote:
Considering Cha is officially willpower afaik, the save named "Will" should really use that, and not Wis...

I have already shuffled charisma and wisdom around in the playtest:

I call them Willpower and Wisdom/Intuition. Willpower has the will save. Wisdom has perception, deception, diplomacy and other skills it had before. Willpower has Intimidation and an Inspire skill (basically the same as intimidation but without the uses in combat and no negative outcomes).

Another idea was to break dexterity into agility and dexterity. The latter is important for missile weapons and thievery, agility does AC and all the rest. But then you are stuck with 7 ability scores...


Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Ramanujan wrote:
I was wondering if house ruling the number of magical items to level/2 rounded up might be interesting/a viable houserule.

Why round up? 1st level characters don't need magic items.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
morphail wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Considering Cha is officially willpower afaik, the save named "Will" should really use that, and not Wis...

I have already shuffled charisma and wisdom around in the playtest:

I call them Willpower and Wisdom/Intuition. Willpower has the will save. Wisdom has perception, deception, diplomacy and other skills it had before. Willpower has Intimidation and an Inspire skill (basically the same as intimidation but without the uses in combat and no negative outcomes).

Another idea was to break dexterity into agility and dexterity. The latter is important for missile weapons and thievery, agility does AC and all the rest. But then you are stuck with 7 ability scores...

Mark talked about making a similar divide to dexterity as an experiment but at least one of the resulting stats still felt overpowered at that point.


morphail wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Considering Cha is officially willpower afaik, the save named "Will" should really use that, and not Wis...

I have already shuffled charisma and wisdom around in the playtest:

I call them Willpower and Wisdom/Intuition. Willpower has the will save. Wisdom has perception, deception, diplomacy and other skills it had before. Willpower has Intimidation and an Inspire skill (basically the same as intimidation but without the uses in combat and no negative outcomes).

Another idea was to break dexterity into agility and dexterity. The latter is important for missile weapons and thievery, agility does AC and all the rest. But then you are stuck with 7 ability scores...

You could make constitution a function of class level for PC's and CR for monsters. That would keep it at six (strength, agility, dexterity, intelligence, wisdom, and charisma).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
morphail wrote:
Roswynn wrote:
Considering Cha is officially willpower afaik, the save named "Will" should really use that, and not Wis...

I have already shuffled charisma and wisdom around in the playtest:

I call them Willpower and Wisdom/Intuition. Willpower has the will save. Wisdom has perception, deception, diplomacy and other skills it had before. Willpower has Intimidation and an Inspire skill (basically the same as intimidation but without the uses in combat and no negative outcomes).

Another idea was to break dexterity into agility and dexterity. The latter is important for missile weapons and thievery, agility does AC and all the rest. But then you are stuck with 7 ability scores...

Whoa, whoa, let's not get crazy here ;)

Charisma is force of personality and it works perfectly for social occasions imo. I would just give it the Will save instead of leaving it to Wis.

Wis is awareness and intuition, so it rules perception... which is pretty big... and a couple skills, for sure.

If you have an Inspire skill that has no negative outcomes why would someone ever want to intimidate anyone else?

As for breaking dex into 2, yeah, I see what you're doing. Dex has always been very strong. Actually it should be even stronger, since melee combat is fundamentally a test of coordination and reflexes, not strength...

See - what happens to me is that if I examine the rules too closely I feel like I want to institute a plethora of changes, like having only Physical/Mental/Social, or 3 rows of stats (1 each for the mentioned categories, like in WoD), etc - but all in all I'm fine with 2e as is (as much as we know!) and I'll just wait for the GMG to see if there are options I'd rather use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Oh yeah, I'm the same way. Once I get started on the house rules track... I end with things like my 26-page house rule document for PF1e. :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MaxAstro wrote:
Oh yeah, I'm the same way. Once I get started on the house rules track... I end with things like my 26-page house rule document for PF1e. :P

XD

I end up exhausted waaay before having anything remotely coherent to play with, so I actively headhunt games I already like as they are or that are very, very modular... possibly both.

I'm loving what we're discovering of 2e, and with the GMG... perhaps I'm gonna be luckier than usual.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

To be fair, several pages of that is my rules for Automatic Bonus Progression, about a dozen pages are just "how each class works with Spheres of Power", and another good chunk is detailing the technological and geopolitical changes that have been wrought upon the world by my players being mad lads in various APs. XD

But yeah, I'm hoping the same thing about 2e, that it will work right out of the box and I won't feel the need to tweak much.


Arachnofiend wrote:
Having your number of skills tied to your Intelligence score is inherently unfair. It penalizes characters that depend on other ability scores, or players who don't want to play bookworm characters.

That's not really true as classes focused on skills start with more skills [rogue has 10 for instance with no int bonus]. Add to that other ways to get trained skills. So it's not an equivalent situation as Resonance is the same for everyone. It'd be equivalent is base Resonance varied by class.

David knott 242 wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:
I was wondering if house ruling the number of magical items to level/2 rounded up might be interesting/a viable houserule.

Why round up? 1st level characters don't need magic items.

As I recall, the default is to round up so deviating would be something that could get miss and confuse people. As such, I don't see the reason to round down.


graystone wrote:
David knott 242 wrote:
Ramanujan wrote:
I was wondering if house ruling the number of magical items to level/2 rounded up might be interesting/a viable houserule.

Why round up? 1st level characters don't need magic items.

As I recall, the default is to round up so deviating would be something that could get miss and confuse people. As such, I don't see the reason to round down.

Is that a change in the final version? It was the other way in the playtest.

playtest rulebook page 299, Rounding wrote:
You’ll often need to calculate a fraction of a value—most often halving damage or calculating a fraction of a cost when crafting. Always round down when you halve or create a fraction or percentage of something. For example, if a spell deals 7 damage and someone takes half damage from it, they would take 3 damage.


graystone wrote:


As I recall, the default is to round up so deviating would be something that could get miss and confuse people. As such, I don't see the reason to round down.

The default is round down, but almost always with a minimum of 1.


Pathfinder Card Game Subscriber

Off-topic question for those who use Charisma for Will saves in PF1: What do you do about the Circlet of Persuasion?

Circlet of Persuasion:
This delicately engraved silver headband grants its wearer a +3 competence bonus on Charisma-based checks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gwaihir Scout wrote:

Off-topic question for those who use Charisma for Will saves in PF1: What do you do about the Circlet of Persuasion?

** spoiler omitted **

"Except Will saves."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Xenocrat wrote:
graystone wrote:


As I recall, the default is to round up so deviating would be something that could get miss and confuse people. As such, I don't see the reason to round down.
The default is round down, but almost always with a minimum of 1.

Only if a result of zero would yield a useless or nonsensical result.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

IMHO the only reason that people view Charisma as lacking parity is because it's so largely under utilized in most games. In all seriousness Charisma should come into play whenever you are:

1. Making a First Impression.
2. Attempting to Buy or Sell items.
3. Attempting to Negotiate the rewards of a quest.
4. Attempting to Gather Information.
5. Speaking to someone on anything more than a casual level.
6. Attempting to convince someone to help you.

... The list is pretty huge.

The problem here is that most people are more than willing to overlook social rolls for common social scenarios by simply relying on the roleplaying of the player.

Realistically, having an 8 Charisma should typically result in you having less than favorable conditions in any conversation you have with someone.

It's a ton of bookkeeping which is why it's never really done.

Charisma is plenty strong when you actually use it in every applicable situation.


Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:


Is that a change in the final version? It was the other way in the playtest.

You are right: I for some reason had it in my head that it had round up. As such, I retract my former statement and suggest that the houserule should follow the round down rule.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

People are always more than willing to say something like..

"Your character is too weak to attempt this." when their strength is low or "That's not something that your character would come up with." when their intelligence is low.

They seem to be much less likely to say "Your character wouldn't be able to come up with an argument this convincing." or "Your character wouldn't be able to get through this without the chance to cause a social misstep." when their charisma is low.

Liberty's Edge

Gwaihir Scout wrote:

Off-topic question for those who use Charisma for Will saves in PF1: What do you do about the Circlet of Persuasion?

** spoiler omitted **

Never came up, I don't think, but like necromental said, it's casually easy to exclude.


Gloom wrote:

IMHO the only reason that people view Charisma as lacking parity is because it's so largely under utilized in most games. In all seriousness Charisma should come into play whenever you are:

1. Making a First Impression.
2. Attempting to Buy or Sell items.
3. Attempting to Negotiate the rewards of a quest.
4. Attempting to Gather Information.
5. Speaking to someone on anything more than a casual level.
6. Attempting to convince someone to help you.

... The list is pretty huge.

The problem here is that most people are more than willing to overlook social rolls for common social scenarios by simply relying on the roleplaying of the player.

Realistically, having an 8 Charisma should typically result in you having less than favorable conditions in any conversation you have with someone.

It's a ton of bookkeeping which is why it's never really done.

Charisma is plenty strong when you actually use it in every applicable situation.

And this is why I always make someone roll when using these checks, and adapt the DC by the roleplay...


13 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Dante Doom wrote:
And this is why I always make someone roll when using these checks, and adapt the DC by the roleplay...

I actually prefer it when the difficulty is adapted by the intentions and other circumstances rather than by the roleplay.

Charisma checks are one of the few ones where people tend to feel it's okay to grade someone based on their performance and that can at times feed into the idea that a character's Charisma is based more around the ability of the player to Roleplay than it is based on the actual statistics of the character.

  • You wouldn't ask someone to go lift up your washing machine to give them a bonus to lift a heavy object.
  • You wouldn't give someone a pop quiz to give them a bonus to a knowledge check. Hell DM's typically try to fight people using out of game knowledge to benefit their character with something that they wouldn't know.
  • You wouldn't give someone an attack bonus if they could hit a bullseye from across your table with a pencil.

    I kind of wish more people would hold to those standards when it came to social situations as well.


  • David knott 242 wrote:
    Ramanujan wrote:
    I was wondering if house ruling the number of magical items to level/2 rounded up might be interesting/a viable houserule.

    Why round up? 1st level characters don't need magic items.

    I thought about it, but felt that that might be too limiting.

    While weapons aren't part of the limit, there were a number of classes in PF1 that revolved around having a sentient item — mostly Black Blades, but the class concept would work with other items also. This house rule would prevent classes like that, if it allowed for no magical items at 1.

    Similarly, for some campaigns, sometimes GMs want to provide players with magical mcguffins as plot hooks.

    Round down (minimum 1) would have players stuck at one item for the first three levels, which while probably not as big a problem as 0 at level 1, seems low.

    Plus most of those rounding downs happen in very different kinds of places.

    You could argue that players gain class/general* feats at level/2 rounded down for example.

    *I can't remember off hand which way round it is.


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gloom wrote:

    IMHO the only reason that people view Charisma as lacking parity is because it's so largely under utilized in most games. In all seriousness Charisma should come into play whenever you are:

    1. Making a First Impression.
    2. Attempting to Buy or Sell items.
    3. Attempting to Negotiate the rewards of a quest.
    4. Attempting to Gather Information.
    5. Speaking to someone on anything more than a casual level.
    6. Attempting to convince someone to help you.

    ... The list is pretty huge.

    The problem here is that most people are more than willing to overlook social rolls for common social scenarios by simply relying on the roleplaying of the player.

    Realistically, having an 8 Charisma should typically result in you having less than favorable conditions in any conversation you have with someone.

    It's a ton of bookkeeping which is why it's never really done.

    Charisma is plenty strong when you actually use it in every applicable situation.

    Most tables I've played on consider "if you don't have a high charisma score you are never allowed to participate in conversations" to detract from the experience. Charisma comes into play when trying to convince someone to do something they don't necessarily want to do, but forcing a roll on every conversation is essentially saying "if you don't have the best diplomacy in the party then shut up".


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

    Yeah, because of what Arachnofiend mentions it's a difficult situation.

    Especially if Charisma checks are needed to buy or sell items; that basically enforces "only the party face does any shopping", which is not much fun.


    7 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    If one of your party members had a really low intelligence and no proficiency in crafting and they stepped up to an alchemy bench to try and make some tinctures... They would likely have a high chance to blow something up.

    Should that happen on a regular basis then I would likely try to sway that person from doing it, or if they insisted I would suggest that they learn a bit more before trying again.

    Same thing can be said about conversational skills.

    It doesn't mean that they should "Just shut up." but it does mean that you may want to suggest that one of your more sociable party members take the lead in social situations.

    If you do not think it's fun to play a character that is inept at social situations... Maybe that makes Charisma and Social Skills more valuable to invest in...?


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    First Comment: Charisma does not hold parity with other attributes, it's underperforming and needs something else added to it in order to make it worth investing in.

    Second Comment: If you require characters to have a reasonable level of social skills to be able to regularly participate in social interaction then the game isn't going to be fun.

    These are pretty contradicting to each other. Just because you are going to have less success than someone who is more skilled in social scenarios does not mean you shouldn't participate. It just means that the people who have a better investment in those areas are going to excel at it while you're going to have a less than stellar performance.

    This sort of mindset is what takes away from the value of Charisma in your games.

    If a rock fell on a party member and their leg was pinned under it, I wouldn't discourage one of the weaker party members from trying to help and move it. Even if they're not accomplishing much they're still trying to help in whatever way they can.


    6 people marked this as a favorite.

    ...Failing a diplomacy roll by enough will make the NPC's attitude to you worse. It's a completely different situation than someone with a low chance of succeeding trying to push a rock. I also consider participating in conversation to be a bit more core to the experience than alchemy, which is a niche thing that only people who want to be good at it have any reason to want to do.

    Like. It's a roleplaying game. How much roleplaying are you doing if you never speak to an NPC because you're too scared the GM will say he gets pissed and pulls a knife on you?


    5 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    I think that approach is too heavy handed. If they're constantly trying to roll bluff or diplomacy to wheedle extra things out of NPCs, and a GM doesn't make them roll for it, then that's obviously wrong.

    But punishing someone for speaking at all to anyone is going in flatly the wrong direction, and encourages the weirdo square dance formation where three silent people follow the one talkative guy through whole high society dinner party.

    When I force my players to make social rolls, it makes sense, and a failure doesn't mean they get slapped then and there like a botched craft alchemy check.

    The low cha half-orc PC brings the players to her standoffish tribe, and must make a diplomacy check to convince her kin that the party is good people. Failure means they have to do a trial of some sort, success means the story moves forward a bit faster.

    The king asks the low cha fighter if what the bard says is true, and what his thoughts on the tale are. A good role backs up the bard's bluff, a bad one knocks the ball back to the bard to make another high bluff check.

    The NPC druid refuses to speak to anyone but the party's druid, and demands an explanation as to why they've killed the pack of wolves. A bad diplomacy check means the NPC druid starts spreading suspicion about the PC druid in the local druid circle.

    Other things my players have actually done with social checks:

    Negotiated a loan ahead of a big bad encounter to get up to WBL.

    Circumvented the final battle with the LE BBEG by convincing her that she was being manipulated by Rovagug supporters.

    Bargained for better rewards.

    Convinced a crowd to disperse and let them quitely handle the political fallout of an exposed assassination attempt.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Gloom wrote:
    If a rock fell on a party member and their leg was pinned under it, I wouldn't discourage one of the weaker party members from trying to help and move it. Even if they're not accomplishing much they're still trying to help in whatever way they can.

    You might want to consider doing so in some situations, at least with the playtest rules, as critically failing some checks (administer first aid, aid, assist, treat disease, treat poison, etc.) can make the situation worse.


    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gloom wrote:
    This sort of mindset is what takes away from the value of Charisma in your games.

    I have to agree agree with this. Charisma's value often gets hand-waved away in favor of roleplay for fun.

    Arachnofiend wrote:
    \Like. It's a roleplaying game. How much roleplaying are you doing if you never speak to an NPC because you're too scared the GM will say he gets pissed and pulls a knife on you?

    IMO, if there is no charismatic person talking, maybe a knife SHOULD be pulled. If there IS such a person, then the aid action on that person is what they'd want to do: this makes even more sense as it has a sliding DC scale [DC 10-DC 20] that can be used depending on how good/bad the argument/help is. So everyone can help but cha has value in helping pass out those bonuses to the main talker: win/win IMO.


    Gwaihir Scout wrote:

    Off-topic question for those who use Charisma for Will saves in PF1: What do you do about the Circlet of Persuasion?

    ** spoiler omitted **

    Huh. I hadn't noticed until now, but PF1 actually has a different definition of "check" from 3.5e, which makes the circlet of persuasion much more powerful.

    In 3.5e, a check is "A method of determining the result when a character attempts an action (other than an attack or a saving throw) that has a chance of failure." In other words, attack rolls and saving throws are specifically not checks. But in Pathfinder 1, attack rolls and saving throws are types of checks along skill checks and ability checks.

    I guess this means that a circlet of persuasion would help a swashbuckler using their Charmed Life feature? Or if any class had a feature that let them use Charisma instead of Strength/Dexterity for attacks?


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Staffan Johansson wrote:
    I guess this means that a circlet of persuasion would help a swashbuckler using their Charmed Life feature? Or if any class had a feature that let them use Charisma instead of Strength/Dexterity for attacks?

    Yes, it adds to a person using Desna's Shooting Star to attack using cha with a starknife.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    My take: If there's no meaningful or interesting consequence for failing a check, then just don't make someone roll. Like... I don't think I've ever had a meaningful RP experience around haggling for the cost of a potion (or whatever). Just accept the wealth tables for the abstraction that they are and go with it. If the item is special in some way (counterfeit, stolen, etc.) or has narrative value, then maybe haggling for price with an NPC vendor might be interesting. Hell, the interesting consequences might only be possible with person what has no Charisma.

    Charisma is a subpar stat (for most, in PF1) because of inherent weaknesses in the 3.x system. You have to force it to be valuable, whereas the other stats are valuable just over the course of the game, running it as intended.


    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    Going to go back to what I said earlier.

    1. Making a First Impression.
    2. Attempting to Buy or Sell items.
    3. Attempting to Negotiate the rewards of a quest.
    4. Attempting to Gather Information.
    5. Speaking to someone on anything more than a casual level.
    6. Attempting to convince someone to help you.

    Intent is what matters in social situations when it comes to whether or not a roll should be made in my opinion. When you first meet someone, make a roll on Diplomacy.

    Critical Success: Increase the NPC's disposition of your character.
    Critical Failure: Decrease the NPC's disposition of your character.

    It doesn't have to modify the disposition on a success or failure if it's just a general day to day meet and greet. If the first impression is critical then you could always have the success increase disposition slightly while a critical success increases it further.

    While that may not impact basic things like buying and selling items in a shop... Since it doesn't matter if the shopkeep is unfriendly toward you, they may decide not to give you a discount or be very cooperative.

    On the other side of that coin you could improve their disposition to Friendly because you come off as a likable person. They may want to cut a little bit off of your price, or offer a bulk discount. They may direct you to where you can get a good deal on an inn room or send you with a recommendation.

    Charisma can matter.

    When it comes to Negotiations, Gathering Information, Speaking to someone on more than a Casual Level (Seducing, Intimidating, Bluffing, Etc), or Trying to convince someone to help you with something..

    The intent of what the player is trying to get across IMO is more important than how exactly they phrase it. Especially since their measure of social grace is directly influenced by their Charisma and Social Skills. That should more than cover up any gaffe that they may accidentally say in their phrasing whether intentional or not.

    In the case of a character that has a low charisma and untrained social skills you could have someone with the most eloquent speechcraft skills say something and somehow their character doesn't get it across in the way that's intended.

    That's what I'm trying to say.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

    Gloom, I think the counterpoint some people are trying to make is that in many cases, because of how integral roleplaying is to the experience, punishing the roleplaying of the low-Charisma character ends up punishing the player in a way that other stats don't. Stat penalties should punish the character; they shouldn't make the game less fun for the player.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    MaxAstro wrote:
    Stat penalties should punish the character; they shouldn't make the game less fun for the player.

    I'm not sure how how having the 'secondary' players modifying the charisma players rolls makes the game less fun: if anything, having their actions move the needle, one way or the other, lets the person feel like they matter. If nothing they do in roleplaying changes things the charisma player does, that's less fun IMO. Otherwise, you feel like a piece of furniture who's actions are inconsequential.


    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
    MaxAstro wrote:
    Gloom, I think the counterpoint some people are trying to make is that in many cases, because of how integral roleplaying is to the experience, punishing the roleplaying of the low-Charisma character ends up punishing the player in a way that other stats don't. Stat penalties should punish the character; they shouldn't make the game less fun for the player.

    In what way do you think a punishment for the character isn't less fun for the player?

    Having a low intelligence and few lore skills means that your character is unlikely to participate in research or lore checks.

    Having a low constitution means you're going to be knocked out of a fight sooner with lower health, and you'll be more susceptible to fatigue, poison, and disease.

    Having a low strength means you're going to be doing less melee and ranged damage, and you're going to be less athletic. You'll also not be able to lift or carry as much.

    Having a low dexterity means you're more likely to be clumsy and less likely to evade something.

    Having a low wisdom means you're more likely to be fooled and you're more susceptible to mind affecting magics.

    All of those seem like in some way they're going to cause the game to be less fun for the player. That's why you're given a choice as to how you want to build your character.

    If social scenarios are important to you as a player then you may want to have a higher charisma and invest in social skills. If you don't and you invest your potential in other areas then you'll be more likely to excel in those areas instead of social ones.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    That argument is like saying that the ability to hit things and dodge are core to the player's enjoyment of the game when playing a Monk. And because of that they should not be prevented from doing so just because they have a low strength and dexterity.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.

    Need that old CHarisma to your men-at-arms morale and amount of them you can keep employed :p

    At least it was tied to a pretty useful core system!


    Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
    Gloom wrote:
    That argument is like saying that the ability to hit things and dodge are core to the player's enjoyment of the game when playing a Monk. And because of that they should not be prevented from doing so just because they have a low strength and dexterity.

    Combat effectiveness is integral to people's enjoyment of the game as is the ability to manifest that with different builds, which is why different classes apply combat effectiveness in different ways.

    Liberty's Edge

    3 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gloom wrote:
    In what way do you think a punishment for the character isn't less fun for the player?

    Most ways.

    Gloom wrote:
    Having a low intelligence and few lore skills means that your character is unlikely to participate in research or lore checks.

    Research and lore checks are not roleplayed. You roll the dice and the GM tells you information. You can describe what you do, but you can do that regardless of actual odds of success.

    From a 'fun' perspective they generally don't matter at all, and there's no difference between you rolling them and someone else rolling them.

    Gloom wrote:
    Having a low constitution means you're going to be knocked out of a fight sooner with lower health, and you'll be more susceptible to fatigue, poison, and disease.

    Okay, so in Pathfinder combat is a big portion of the game. We'll call it around half. PCs need some way to be useful in combat for the game to work. But how you do that can vary pretty widely, and most characters have a way to do that, not all of which involve high Con (indeed, there's some way to use all stats in combat, depending on Class).

    Social interaction, meanwhile, not the rolls but getting to talk to people, is probably about one fourth of most games in terms of time (sometimes less in a pure dungeon crawl, occasionally much more). By gating it behind high Charisma, you're doing the equivalent of telling players that they have to sit out one half of all combats or they'll need to make a Fortitude Save and, on a failure, attack their friends. You're effectively just excluding them from 1/4 of play time, or forcing them to be actively detrimental to their own party's success, and that's terrible.

    That's not fun. It's punitive.

    Gloom wrote:
    Having a low strength means you're going to be doing less melee and ranged damage, and you're going to be less athletic. You'll also not be able to lift or carry as much.

    And none of those are roleplaying. All are purely mechanical things that in no way effect how much of the game you can participate in without actively penalizing the other players.

    Gloom wrote:
    Having a low dexterity means you're more likely to be clumsy and less likely to evade something.

    And we're back to the discussion under Con above. You do not flatly need Dex to participate in combat. There are many ways to do that. Making people make Dex checks every attack or they hit their friends is not fun, and is the equivalent of what you're suggesting in some ways.

    Gloom wrote:
    Having a low wisdom means you're more likely to be fooled and you're more susceptible to mind affecting magics.

    Yup. And low Charisma should definitely mean something that's a downside as well, but it shouldn't mean you are simply not allowed to participate in large portions of the game or be penalized.

    Gloom wrote:
    All of those seem like in some way they're going to cause the game to be less fun for the player. That's why you're given a choice as to how you want to build your character.

    There's a difference between 'This will occasionally have downsides.' and 'This keeps me sitting bored with nothing to do for at least an hour every game session.'

    Now, as others have mentioned, there are the Aid rules and if you use those, this is somewhat less true. Of course, using those, the penalties of Charisma you suggest also mostly cease to be.

    Gloom wrote:
    If social scenarios are important to you as a player then you may want to have a higher charisma and invest in social skills. If you don't and you invest your potential in other areas then you'll be more likely to excel in those areas instead of social ones.

    Nobody is saying that Grog the Mighty with his Cha 8 and no social skills should routinely succeed in social situations. They're saying that making his participation (along with everyone else, including the Bard) an active detriment, while perhaps realistic is super unfun for Grog's player and likely everyone else at the table as well.

    It's the idea that mere participation in a fundamental part of the game (talking with others ie: roleplaying, the thing the game is named for) requires a particular stat or the PC group is penalized is what people are objecting to.

    Gloom wrote:
    That argument is like saying that the ability to hit things and dodge are core to the player's enjoyment of the game when playing a Monk. And because of that they should not be prevented from doing so just because they have a low strength and dexterity.

    No, it's like saying you need high Dex and Str to participate in more than every other combat even if you're a Wizard. At least in terms of play time impact.

    And that sucks.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I would just as soon drop charisma and social skills from the game and just do improv, to be honest. I'd have more fun doing that.


    14 people marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I would just as soon drop charisma and social skills from the game and just do improv, to be honest. I'd have more fun doing that.

    As a socially unskilled person, I like being able to play characters much more socially adept than I, and having that actually work requires mechanics like charisma and social skills. You RL social butterflies can do improv instead.

    Liberty's Edge

    6 people marked this as a favorite.
    PossibleCabbage wrote:
    I would just as soon drop charisma and social skills from the game and just do improv, to be honest. I'd have more fun doing that.

    This requires a really good, really fair, GM to be fun. I've had a game or two that were like that, but also had the opposite experience.

    With most other GMs it hits the 'mother may I' spot a bit too hard, IME. A lot of GMs have a very specific idea of what NPC X will respond to, and it's super annoying and deeply frustrating trying to read the GM's mind exactly what that is.

    It's particularly bad if the GM is closer friends with some players than others, since those players suddenly wind up with NPCs answering all their questions and being friendly to them since that person knows better how to talk to the GM, and that's the real-world social skill actually being used...while those who happen to know the GM less well often fail at social things almost automatically.

    And that's not even getting into the 'low social skills in real life' issue. A really good GM can counter this but, well, see above.

    Shadow Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Gloom wrote:
    MaxAstro wrote:
    Gloom, I think the counterpoint some people are trying to make is that in many cases, because of how integral roleplaying is to the experience, punishing the roleplaying of the low-Charisma character ends up punishing the player in a way that other stats don't. Stat penalties should punish the character; they shouldn't make the game less fun for the player.

    In what way do you think a punishment for the character isn't less fun for the player?

    Having a low intelligence and few lore skills means that your character is unlikely to participate in research or lore checks.

    Having a low constitution means you're going to be knocked out of a fight sooner with lower health, and you'll be more susceptible to fatigue, poison, and disease.

    Having a low strength means you're going to be doing less melee and ranged damage, and you're going to be less athletic. You'll also not be able to lift or carry as much.

    Having a low dexterity means you're more likely to be clumsy and less likely to evade something.

    Having a low wisdom means you're more likely to be fooled and you're more susceptible to mind affecting magics.

    All of those seem like in some way they're going to cause the game to be less fun for the player. That's why you're given a choice as to how you want to build your character.

    If social scenarios are important to you as a player then you may want to have a higher charisma and invest in social skills. If you don't and you invest your potential in other areas then you'll be more likely to excel in those areas instead of social ones.

    In general, five stats are used in combat and exploration activities. Variations in those five stats change how a character approaches those activities, but everyone still participates.

    One stat governs social activities. Variations in that one stat changes how much a character gets to participate in the activity, period.

    Grand Lodge

    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber

    Roleplaying is not the same as demanding physical tasks. You can roleplay without reciting dialogue, and that can absolutely warrant a bonus to any skill check. Describing how you go about finding a safe spot to camp might give a small bonus to a Survival check to survive in the wild. Explaining what you hide behind and when you move could help a Stealth check if the situation would apply. Listing the explicit ways your character will eviscerate their enemy using rusty implements might give a small bonus to a demoralize action. Roleplaying, with our without dialogue, can add to the game.

    Anyways, this is getting off topic from the future of Pathfinder. I do wish Charisma could do something intrinsic to characters like the rest of the stats. Resonance was an interesting attempt, but it felt especially rough on certain classes and races. Maybe something similar in nature will come about in the future to give a good reason for off-stat classes to take it.


    4 people marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

    I think that there's a fundamental issue that people are glossing over here. Just because you're at a disadvantage in social situations doesn't mean that you shouldn't participate.

    Maybe you made a bad impression to the local shopkeep and he's irritated at you. That sucks. Doesn't mean that he's not going to make a deal with you.

    Attempting to gather information around town and not able to convince people to share what they know? That sucks but you can still go around town and listen in on conversations or just enjoy yourself and roleplay the attempt.

    I'm not talking about characters that are stumbling over their words to the point that conversation is impossible here.

    101 to 150 of 220 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder Second Edition / [PaizoCon] "The Future of Pathfinder" All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.