Nah, man. Paul McFace the Paladin would still shame your fighter wannabe. Paladins get a ton of stuff off charisma, at our table, they tend to have a pretty strong diplo modifier, and often the highest one of the group. Sure, you can cheese the diplo score much higher with a good bard build, but even a paladin can effortlessly shame an invested fighter.
"Effortlessly".
Let's say two effective feats then. One trait for class skill, another for Wis-to-Diplo, and Skill Focus. Less than your theoretical three feats. The Paladin starts out with a Charisma mod of +3 because I'm being nice, and the Fighter's Wisdom mod is +2. The Paladin has a +2 Enhancement bonus by lv 10 and +6 by lv 15. The fighter settles for a +2 Enhancement bonus at lv 10. Here's the Diplomacy bonus at lv 1, 5, 10, and 15:
Paladin:
+7, +11, +17, +24
Fighter:
+10, +14, +23, +28
Besides, the difference needs not be large. If the party faces a bouncer, and need to haggle their way in. Are they gonna have Paul McFace talk to him with his zero feats and +10 modifier on diplo checks, or Fite McWanna, the fighter with three social feats for a total of a +9 modifier on the diplo checks? Paul McFace the paladin, of course. The amount of wasted resources will be irrelevant, the one with the highest modifier will be called upon.
You're treating the RPG like a computer game.
Letting the thief pick locks is obvious, as is depending on the scholar for the history lesson. But if your mother has turned to the dark side and you have one moment to convince her that there is still good in the world, you sure as hell aren't gonna call on McFace. Social interactions are basically how you interact with the plot.
Fleshing out characters has nothing to do with rounding the build. It's about establishing who the character is. Where do they come from? What do they strive for? What motivates them? What do they fear? What principles guide them? None of that fits on one's character sheet, but establishes "character" much more than what Perform skill you chose to invest in.
Take any fantasy story you know of, be it movie or mythology. Now if the protagonist wasn't a deaf-mute, they are sure to have talked with people. Maybe they caught a lie that made them suspicious, intimidated a noble, or convinced someone to help them. If your character isn't capable of communicating then they aren't fleshed out at all.
My issue is “cheese”
By cheese do you mean invest more in charisma as it’s your main stat in a sadder class and invest more skill ranks because you have more to invest?
Cause that ain’t cheese.
Nah, man. Paul McFace the Paladin would still shame your fighter wannabe. Paladins get a ton of stuff off charisma, at our table, they tend to have a pretty strong diplo modifier, and often the highest one of the group. Sure, you can cheese the diplo score much higher with a good bard build, but even a paladin can effortlessly shame an invested fighter."Effortlessly".
Let's say two effective feats then. One trait for class skill, another for Wis-to-Diplo, and Skill Focus. Less than your theoretical three feats. The Paladin starts out with a Charisma mod of +3 because I'm being nice, and the Fighter's Wisdom mod is +2. The Paladin has a +2 Enhancement bonus by lv 10 and +6 by lv 15. The fighter settles for a +2 Enhancement bonus at lv 10. Here's the Diplomacy bonus at lv 1, 5, 10, and 15:
Paladin:
+7, +11, +17, +24Fighter:
+10, +14, +23, +28
One trait /feat/, one feat for wis-to-diplo (which are mostly from sketchy splatbooks imo), and then one feat for skill focus. So yea, three feats. Three feats that could have been immensely more useful invested otherwise. You are really gonna put all of your starting feats into diplomacy, hoping nobody else puts even just one? "Power Attack, why would my fighter need that? I've got DIPLOMACY!" "Toughness? Pff!"
I didn't say it was impossible for a fighter to beat a paladin in diplomacy. But I'm sticking that doing so is a ridiculous waste of resources. Why play a fighter at all?
Besides, the difference needs not be large. If the party faces a bouncer, and need to haggle their way in. Are they gonna have Paul McFace talk to him with his zero feats and +10 modifier on diplo checks, or Fite McWanna, the fighter with three social feats for a total of a +9 modifier on the diplo checks? Paul McFace the paladin, of course. The amount of wasted resources will be irrelevant, the one with the highest modifier will be called upon.You're treating the RPG like a computer game.
Letting the thief pick locks is obvious, as is depending on the scholar for the history lesson. But if your mother has turned to the dark side and you have one moment to convince her that there is still good in the world, you sure as hell aren't gonna call on McFace. Social interactions are basically how you interact with the plot.
You are implying you need social skills for social interactions. If that was the case, Pathfinder would lack social interactions until late game. Pretty much anyone can chance themselves, even at high levels, at DCs appropriate for the lvl 1 face. Which is mostly what the core of social interactions are set at. Social /challenges/, on the other hand, there's no reason not to delegate to McFace. Ordering a beer doesn't require a DC30 diplo check. Nor does taking on a contract. Or most other social interactions. A character does not need to invest in social skills to be social.
Fleshing out characters has nothing to do with rounding the build. It's about establishing who the character is. Where do they come from? What do they strive for? What motivates them? What do they fear? What principles guide them?Take any fantasy story you know of, be it movie or mythology. Now if the protagonist wasn't a deaf-mute, they are sure to have talked with people. Maybe they caught a lie that made them suspicious, intimidated a noble, or convinced someone to help them. If your character isn't capable of communicating then they aren't fleshed out at all.
As above, you don't need actual ranks in social skills to be able to communicate. Secondly, many heroes in many stories have their McFace buddy step up at crucial moments in the story, enabling progress or getting them out of a bad situation, the hero doesn't always do all the social checks themselves. Thirdly, many stories revolve around a singular main character, with a cast of support characters of varying importance, and this is not applicable to a Pathfinder group, where every party member is expected to share similar levels of importance and where one character dominating the rest is typically considered poor game. A film about a protagonist that solves most challenges himself can work, but Pathfinder is a game where people play in turns, exchanging the spotlight. It's not the same dynamic.
One trait /feat/, one feat for wis-to-diplo (which are mostly from sketchy splatbooks imo), and then one feat for skill focus. So yea, three feats.
Do you perhaps not know what traits are? You are supposed to get two of them at character creation, and they are valued to be worth half of a feat. Additional Traits is a feat that gives you two additional traits.
So. Two feats.
I didn't say it was impossible for a fighter to beat a paladin in diplomacy. But I'm sticking that doing so is a ridiculous waste of resources. Why play a fighter at all?
Let's see what you said.
"but even a paladin can effortlessly shame an invested fighter."
"Are they gonna have Paul McFace talk to him with his zero feats and +10 modifier on diplo checks, or Fite McWanna, the fighter with three social feats for a total of a +9 modifier on the diplo checks?"
****
Honestly, this got out of hand.
You started out by saying that only charisma-based classes can be faces. I provided easy fixes to base social skills on Wisdom or Intelligence. You get mad that you have to invest resources to be good at something you normally wouldn't. Which is inane. Then you bring up the example of Barbarian and Fighter, two classes that don't even get diplomacy as class skills. Like yeah, of course you would have to invest additional resources then.
But instead of comparing them to the Paladin, you should have compared them to a normal Fighter and a normal Barbarian. For the cost of one feat, you can have a Fighter or Barbarian with good Diplomacy bonuses even though they have dumped charisma. Which was the whole point.
Now if we take any of the Int or Wis-based casters they'd be more proficient than the Paladin for the cost of one trait, or one feat if they lack the class skill. A Cleric only requires one trait to be better at Diplomacy than the Paladin, and a Wizard makes a much better face than the Sorcerer.
No, U are being pedantic! ;)
2.5, 3, really worth arguing about? Still two feats and a trait not put into being useful at what your class was meant to be good at. Can you make a rogue expert at grappling? Kinda? But... why? Turning your fighter into a Face is possible, but requires you putting so much of your resources at it, that you won't be great at anything. Which was the point to begin with. Sure, if your party is small and lacks a Face, a socially-tuned fighter can be the beefy Face. But the odds of the party lacking a character who can make a better Face with less dipping aren't that high.
Which all sidesteps the fact that you don't need to invest in social skills at all in order to be able to play the social game. And that roleplaying the social game doesn't even require your character to be any good at social interactions.
2.5, 3, really worth arguing about? Still two feats and a trait not put into being useful at what your class was meant to be good at.
0.5 + 0.5 + 1 = 2
Dammit, yes. It is worth arguing about if you don't know what traits are. All of the things I linked earlier were Character Traits. Empathic Diplomat isn't a Feat. None of them are Feats.
Getting Wisdom to Bluff? - Trait.
Getting Wisdom to Diplomacy? - Trait.
Getting Intelligence to any Charisma Skill? - Trait.
Getting Intelligence to both Diplomacy and Bluff? - Trait.
Spend one trait on your Warpriest or Cleric and you're a better Face than the Paladin.
Spend one trait on your Rogue or Vigilante so that you can dump charisma and still have good Diplomacy/Bluff bonuses.
Spend one trait on your Fighter/Barbarian and you aren't forced into taking Intimidating Prowess.
Spend one trait on your feinting build and you aren't forced into keeping all of your mental stats above 10.
That's the worth of one trait. Half of a feat.
Ah, perhaps they are. Still from sketchy splatbooks that may not be allowed at all tables. ;)
If the party faces a bouncer, and need to haggle their way in. Are they gonna have Paul McFace talk to him with his zero feats and +10 modifier on diplo checks, or Fite McWanna, the fighter with three social feats for a total of a +9 modifier on the diplo checks?You're treating the RPG like a computer game.
Letting the thief pick locks is obvious, as is depending on the scholar for the history lesson. But if your mother has turned to the dark side and you have one moment to convince her that there is still good in the world, you sure as hell aren't gonna call on McFace. Social interactions are basically how you interact with the plot.
As long as we're letting Diplomacy skill decide the effect of the interactions, the RPG is behaving more like a a game where the numbers are more important than what the player says or does than game where what the player says or does is more important. (Both types of game are referred to as RPGs.)
In a case where it's your mother, the GM would probably give you a bonus on the roll. But most published adventures don't feature 'your mother' as a major character, and the rest of the time you're better off letting the party face do it.
"We need to bluff our way past these guards or the whole castle will be after us."
"Well, obviously Bardy McBardyface should do all the talking. I will continue not to interact with the plot."
One of the tricks for being a better GM is making players feel like they won't get punished for interacting with NPCs despite having bad Diplomacy skill. But the rules don't do much to encourage this.
Social (and other mental) challenges are tricky because they put expectations on the players that physical challenges don't. If the fighter wants to break from a grapple, you generally don't jump on the player and ask him to break free from you as he rolls with his +10 str modifier. If the rogue tries to cross a trapped corridor, you don't throw a bin of Lego pieces across the floor, demanding the player to cross it before rolling his dice. If the ranger gets poisoned, you don't ask the player to chug a gallon of bleach before making his fort save.
Yet at many tables, when faced with a puzzle, the player of the wizard is expected to solve it by himself, whether his int modifier is +1 or +15 changes nothing to the process. When the evil mayor lies to the PCs, the players are expected to catch the cues on their own, regardless of their wisdom modifiers or ranks in sense motive. And when it comes to convincing the guards to let them go, the players better have just the right words come out if they want success.
That's a double-standard that puts a heavy burden on the players of "mental" characters, which others don't need to worry about. If someone wanted to make the most genius mage of the world, and then his character is mocked by all for failing a simple riddle, just because the player's not very good at riddles or at thinking under pressure, odds are that player will be less than satisfied. The barbarian's living out his fantasy of smashing everything that stands in his way, why can't he live his own of out-witting every challenge?
Now, yes, yes, of course, reducing every mental interaction to a roll is touchy, because it can both make things bland and reduce agency. Having the GM narrate the results after a simple roll would require the GM telling the player what his own character thought and said, which is far from ideal. If the GM prepared a big puzzle for the dungeon, which the player simply rolls an int check to solve, everyone could possibly be quite underwhelmed (though people with experiences on puzzle/riddle challenges may just be relieved that they don't have to spend 30 frustrating minutes without progress). But if the narrated right, you can still go with an int check (or multiple) and interactively work things out with the one rolling where you lay out all of the workings of the challenge step by step as you ask the player how he handles them.
For strictly social interactions, it can be hard for the GM to narrate a discussion if it's just dice being rolled. Now there are many ways to handle this, but it,s a balancing act between "I want to flesh out social interactions into an organic and realistic way (from a dialogue point of view" and "I want to handle these challenges fairly without penalizing the characters if their player isn't the most theatrically-inclined". At our table, the compromise is generally that we roll and explain what our character says with that roll, and the GM will adjudicate the result accordingly. If someone says garbage, he'll get a penalty to his result. If he says something good, he'll get a bonus. It's the best compromise we've come up with, but it still isn't perfect. Many of us at the table aren't really good at improvisation, and so penalties are being handed out much more often than bonuses (from what I gather anyways).
"We need to bluff our way past these guards or the whole castle will be after us."
"Well, obviously Bardy McBardyface should do all the talking. I will continue not to interact with the plot."One of the tricks for being a better GM is making players feel like they won't get punished for interacting with NPCs despite having bad Diplomacy skill. But the rules don't do much to encourage this.
Social challenges tend to take very, very little game time. Fights take a long time. And we might take a long time goofing around roleplaying. But bluffing your way past these guards? Some tables may be peculiar, but I have a hard time seeing that kind of thing taking more than a minute or two.
Since you can't have everyone talking at once (or else you won't understand anything), you'll pretty much have to choose one person to talk. Why not send McFace? Despite the impression I'm sure I give to many, we aren't rigid min-maxers. Sometimes, there's roleplaying sense for one character talking even if he doesn't have the highest score. Or sometimes, if someone does horribly, we'll just send someone else after him to clean up. Some characters are uncharismatic loudmouthes. And the less vital the challenge, the more likely they are to take the spot. But if the stakes are "we need to go in peacefully or fight the whole castle", it's almost certain McFace will do the talking. And why not? It's gonna take a few exchanges and one or few dice rolls only, it takes nothing from anyone else. And McFace deserves a chance to shine now and then too. Bards are not super fun to play. Very buff-centered, which is the most tedious style of character, as generally, you can clearly make a list of "the most powerful buff" to "the least powerful buff", with a cutoff somewhere between the buffs you almost have no choice but to cast, and the buffs that are so small they are nearly not worth casting. At least let the bard shine outside of combat!
If I were to rewrite the game, I would do social issues very differently, but with the game as is, skill checks definitely have their place in social interactions. As long as one remembers that basic social DCs don't need to scale with level. If you are playing a beggar on the street, the DC for begging for a gold coin shouldn't be any higher when you are a lvl 20 beggar than when you are a lvl 1 beggar (illustrative). So say you invested your beggar skills in something else than begging, your odds of success are not going down, and probably going up thanks to various indirect buffs. At level 1, most doors are going to be made of wood. That doesn't mean that at level 15, they all *need* to be made of adamantine. Sure, some might, because the players are assaulting beefier locations, but sometimes a door's just a door and wood makes plenty of sense. Same thing with social checks. If you have to bluff your way into a camp at level 1, you'll probably be facing some drunk/distracted/apathetic guards somewhere that are easy to fool, and more serious locations will tend to have more alert/cautious defenders, but that doesn't mean no dimwit will find their way in there either and passing yourself off as merchants at high levels isn't really all that different than at low levels (you just look like more successful merchants). Not all DCs need to be high, and indeed peppering low DCs is a good thing imo because the game hands out way too few skill points. But there's nothing wrong with sending McFace for all the serious social challenges. His investments should be rewarded.
|
As an aside, I have played PFS consistently in multiple areas around the US. In none of them do people generally consider CHA to be a secondary stat for Paladins. It's almost always CHA > STR > CON, with the occasional CHA > DEX > STR for the paladin archers.
In the 'main' two areas I have played PFS in, it's not uncommon to have one or two characters at the table who barely contribute to combat. Mind you, in most cases, they do not hinder combat, either, though.
In the non-PFS games I play, things like diplomacy are often handled by the appropriate character to the interaction. NOT the highest diplo character. If we are being introduced to some noble as a group, sure, we assign a 'face.' But if we are trying to talk an NPC wizard into helping us, it's going to be the party wizard doing the talking, because he is the person who -would- be doing the talking. The rest of the group will just do their best to toss out assists. And yes, we -will- all be talking, as appropriate. As always, groups vary, but generally, the groups I play with spend a lot less time in combat than they do in social / downtime modes. Mind you, the people I generally play with know what they are doing. And by that, I don't mean they make 'combat-optimized' characters. I mean when their turn comes up, they know what they are going to be doing, how it works, what they need to roll, and have paid attention to everything else that has happened, so they know their bonuses, etc. Heck, we get descriptive about what we are doing. It still just doesn't take all that long.
We also tend to make sure new players to the game understand their characters, as well. But then, we talk out of game -about- the game, and our characters, and tactics, and such. And nobody complains when someone makes a sub-optimal choice in combat. It's combat. It's supposed to be hectic. Someone blocks a charge lane? We'll make a joke later about having to get that dent in their helmet fixed so their vision isn't obscured. Someone misjudges the centering of a fireball and catches a friend? Oops. It happens.
I realize there are tables out there where people will get out templates and spend 3 minutes trying to find the perfect spot to drop a spell at... that they only have a couple seconds in game to actually decide on. And if people want to allow players 5 minutes to decide something their character has 5 seconds to decide, that's ok as well. But long combats aren't the norm. At least not with the groups I tend to play with (PFS or otherwise.) Not because people are optimized for combat (let us be honest here... no combat optimization is really needed to beat CR-appropriate encounters.) But because we try to make sure people know what they are doing. And then just do it.
All that being said, there are many different playstyles. The only important question is, "Did the group have fun."
Optimized means different things to different people. Are you optimized for combat? For skills? Or, more importantly, for having fun.
Oh, and @Goblin_Priest:
You make the comment about "Bards are not super fun to play. Very buff-centered, which is the most tedious style of character..."
You don't seem to realize that not everyone is of the same opinion. I know a considerable number of people who love playing bards. Who love being buffers. Who do not find it tedious in the least. Being able to 'shine' in combat doesn't require being the person who hit the hardest, or got the most crits. It just requires not presupposing (as you seem to be doing, though I admit I could be wrong) that 'shining' means being up front, dishing out damage.
Oh, and @Goblin_Priest:
You make the comment about "Bards are not super fun to play. Very buff-centered, which is the most tedious style of character..."
You don't seem to realize that not everyone is of the same opinion. I know a considerable number of people who love playing bards. Who love being buffers. Who do not find it tedious in the least. Being able to 'shine' in combat doesn't require being the person who hit the hardest, or got the most crits. It just requires not presupposing (as you seem to be doing, though I admit I could be wrong) that 'shining' means being up front, dishing out damage.
I didn't say bards weren't useful, nor that buffs aren't powerful. Buffs are extremely powerful.
Of course, what I find fun and what others find fun won't always perfectly align. I quite enjoy playing a fighter, while one of my table-mates does not, as he likes having a long list of options to pick from.
To clarify, what I find fun in combat is not necessarily shining (though I do find that fun), but more critically, it's about having meaningful decisions to make. To my friend, there isn't any with a fighter, you just "move in and full-round attack". I quite disagree, where you go and who you attack is of outmost importance. Your positioning has huge impact, as does your target prioritizing. As the tank, you are the force multiplier: all of the buffs are only good if you go out and make the most of them. Which involves a mix between controlling where your enemies can and can't go, who you need to occupy, and how can you tank as much as possible without getting yourself in excessive trouble. A delicate balance, I love it. Rolling a few dice and adding a large modifier to damage is also enjoyable. But so is my conjuration wizard, which doesn't do any damage worth mentioning. Web, Grease, Create Pit, Euphoric Cloud, etc. What terrain do I block, what enemies do I target? Important decisions that will have ramifications, and which again I need to have been paying attention to make the best decision.
But Cleric, or Bard?
You /know/ that, when you have them, every fight you'll be using Inspire Courage, Haste, Good Hope, etc., as a bard, or spells like Prayer, Bless, Blessing of Fervor as a cleric. And you'll pretty much be casting them in the same order, every fight, until level ups switch up the routine a little.
You don't need to look at the battlefield. You don't need to pay attention between turns. You don't need to roll dice. You don't really need to be all that careful with placement. Depending on your level, your first few rounds of every battle will essentially be pre-determined. Some circumstances may make things different, but on the whole, your combat experience will be repetitive.
*That's* what I don't like about buffers. Not that they are weak. Not that they lack glory. But that they are extremely repetitive.
Some of my buddies have made many bards and/or clerics. Guess they don't mind the role all that much. In my eyes, though, those are kinda cohort classes: perfect for supporting the party without hogging much game time. Of course, bards can just opt not to learn the major buffs, and there's many archetypes that focus less on buffs, but overall... not what I prefer playing.
An optimized character is not automatically one-dimensional, a non-optimized character is not automatically deep.
One's optimization abilities and roleplaying abilities are completely unrelated.