PDA

View Full Version : Dump Stats



Melamoto
2009-09-20, 06:45 AM
People often take Wis and Cha as dump stats in games, and not just in Char Op. I try to do this as little as possible, because from a roleplaying point of view, unless it's the idea of your character, dumping these stats is just plain bad.

Taking a look at one they entail:
Wisdom affects your sanity, mental strength, and connection to the world around you. With a Wis of 8, you're looking at somebody whose head is often in the clouds, or can't focus on anything very well. Short attention span (And on a related note, why on earth is Concentration based off Con? That implies that an old, frail, but constantly meditating mystic wouldn't be able to concentrate as well as a Barbarian with a brain the size of a peanut and ADD who had equal ranks in concentration. And what's this? When you rage, you can't tumble, but you can concentrate?). Lower than 8, and we're getting into complete Cloud Cuckoo landers, very unlike most of the serious Wizards who concentrate and are very attached to matters at hand. In some cases, this might make sense; someone who hangs around in a dungeon with insane creatures all day might take a few sanity points. But not as much as they often are in sessions.
Charisma is not just your appearance; it's your force of personality, self-confidence, ego, pretty much what builds your psyche, sharing the role only with Wisdom and Alignment (Not Intelligence). So many people use Cha as a dump stat. With a Cha of 8, people should be shy and petty, not strongly willed or very confident in themselves. They should have trouble feeling fit for matters at hand, be timid; even a mighty barbarian shouldn't be shouting very loud, or be saying things like "I say we stop wasting time and go and kick their asses!" with a tiny charisma score. Lower than 8, these people need psychological help. What happens when you hit 0 Cha? You lose all sense of being, and become what amounts to a vegetable. Your mind is intact; but it's like having a car without fuel. You can be ugly without being a social wreck, and you can be beautiful without having a strong force of will. This is what circumstance modifiers are for!

Considering this, why do I see so many careful and calculating wizards who always have themselves a contingency plan when they have a Wisdom of 6? Why do I see so many brave, confident barbarians who believe in their power and always put themselves first when they have a Cha of 5 or 4?

Grumman
2009-09-20, 07:08 AM
(And on a related note, why on earth is Concentration based off Con? That implies that an old, frail, but constantly meditating mystic wouldn't be able to concentrate as well as a Barbarian with a brain the size of a peanut and ADD who had equal ranks in concentration. And what's this? When you rage, you can't tumble, but you can concentrate?)
Concentration lets you ignore injury and discomfort. The tougher you are, the less discomfort there is to ignore.


Charisma is not just your appearance; it's your force of personality, self-confidence, ego, pretty much what builds your psyche, sharing the role only with Wisdom and Alignment (Not Intelligence).
I disagree. It definitely affects how easily you can convince or manipulate other people, but any relation to self-confidence and ego doesn't actually show up in the rules.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-20, 07:09 AM
Because those people are poor roleplayers. Cha 4 shouldn't be confident in any way. Wisdom 6 might conceivably think of plans, and even many contingency plans if their Intelligence is so high. The wisdom part comes in when looking at whether or not those plans work, or whether the wizard can successfully execute them.

I think your threshold for mental problems is too low. Based on the probability of Int 7 charted against (a possibly misleading) IQ graph, Int 7 is merely on the lower end of dull. Even Int 5 is just really stupid; but not so stupid that it can't function decently in society. Complete Cloud Cuckoo land would start maybe at Wisdom 5. Wisdom 7 is still very much sane, if quite a fool. Charisma 7 definitely does not need mental help (although, in this day and age, it would probably get a whole bunch of "help" drugs), and Charisma 6 could function decently.

Again, you overemphasize the crippling power of a low Charisma. Charisma 8 could be shy, and shouldn't be very strong-willed or confident. "not very confident" doesn't mean "not confident at all" - especially when, due to extenuating circumstances, they've already been pushed into adventuring. A career like that builds assertiveness, or at least the facade of it; and likewise for a barbarian culture.

The stats I never dump are Con and Int (although I may have them low). Low charisma is, as you mentioned, a fast lane to a insecure wallflower. However, I find that the constant presence of a great leader (a Cha-monkey in your party) tends to alleviate that significantly. RP-wise, I can empathize with low Wisdom characters, and if they're too low it's fun to play the fool. I don't enjoy the effort of restraining my ideas (intelligence) just to stay in character.

You say that dumping Wis or Cha is a poor idea, unless it's in your concept. IMO, any dump stat sort of becomes your concept. A pathetically weak person will have his life defined by it; same with a frail, sickly fellow or a massively clumsy oaf. Low mental stats literally define the person. You don't dump a stat unless you're ready to deal with it - but no concept will be broken in half by a dump stat.

Melamoto
2009-09-20, 07:20 AM
I think your threshold for mental problems is too low. Based on the probability of Int 7 charted against (a possibly misleading) IQ graph, Int 7 is merely on the lower end of dull. Even Int 5 is just really stupid; but not so stupid that it can't function decently in society.

I disagree with this based on the idea that the average is 10-11, and animals are at 3. Int 5 should probably not be able to function decently in society, apart from a Lennie-esque brute force worker who needs a personal supervisor.


Complete Cloud Cuckoo land would start maybe at Wisdom 5. Wisdom 7 is still very much sane, if quite a fool. Charisma 7 definitely does not need mental help (although, in this day and age, it would probably get a whole bunch of "help" drugs), and Charisma 6 could function decently.
The thing is, the scale is quite small. Charisma 5-6 is half way to being disabled by it, and Cha 7 is only 1 step above that. When I say mental help, I mean Psychiatrist, special treatment by those close (Constant build-ups needed), and somebody to help them be more assertive. Alone, they would be getting conned by everyone who tried, simply because they wouldn't stand against it, whether or not they could figure it out.


Again, you overemphasize the crippling power of a low Charisma. Charisma 8 could be shy, and shouldn't be very strong-willed or confident. "not very confident" doesn't mean "not confident at all" - especially when, due to extenuating circumstances, they've already been pushed into adventuring. A career like that builds assertiveness, or at least the facade of it; and likewise for a barbarian culture.

I never said they would be not confident at all; I said exactly that they would not be very confident in themselves. "It's time to kick ass and chew bubblegum" and the like are matters of bravery and confidence, which a Barbarian with low Cha should be lacking. And you're right, Barbarian and adventuring culture should promote and teach these things; which is WHY Barbarians and adventurers shouldn't be packing low charisma scores!


You say that dumping Wis or Cha is a poor idea, unless it's in your concept. IMO, any dump stat sort of becomes your concept. A pathetically weak person will have his life defined by it; same with a frail, sickly fellow or a massively clumsy oaf. Low mental stats literally define the person. You don't dump a stat unless you're ready to deal with it - but no concept will be broken in half by a dump stat.

This is where I agree with you. But people don't play low strength sorcerers who go around lifting things and fighting well in melee. Meanwhile, low charisma rage-fighters go around screaming blood fury, starting bar fights, and taking the initiative. Low wisdom Wizards ponder each strategy they make carefully, comparing it with others, and waiting it out until the perfect opportunity comes up.

Rainbownaga
2009-09-20, 07:20 AM
You can be incredibly self confident with a charisma score of 1, it just means that everybody instinctively dislikes you and comments behind your back things like "can you believe that person actually talked to me?"

As for wisdom, it covers so many things it's ridiculous. I like to think of it as your 'animal intelligence' since it covers the more primal aspects such as perception and empathy as much as sensibility. You could probably actually play one almost as a Vulcan, ignoring the primitive 'emotions' meaning you have no empathy, and focus only on what is 'logical' (int) based on what is common sense (wis)

Sliver
2009-09-20, 07:26 AM
And what's this? When you rage, you can't tumble, but you can concentrate?

NO, no you can't.

While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration

Anyway, one of my players wanted 4 WIS (a crusader//FavSoul..) but I had some problem with that, saying that min 6 wis or I will force him to RP that (not the greatest RPer.. by far) and that I fail to see a god being proud of someone like that..

Melamoto
2009-09-20, 07:28 AM
You can be incredibly self confident with a charisma score of 1, it just means that everybody instinctively dislikes you and comments behind your back things like "can you believe that person actually talked to me?"

Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

And if what you said was the case, then why do people with 0 Charisma lose sapience?


Concentration lets you ignore injury and discomfort. The tougher you are, the less discomfort there is to ignore.
If that's the reason, then Intelligence should also help you with bluff because you can figure out a more elaborate lie.


NO, no you can't.
My bad then.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-20, 07:32 AM
Int 5 is not halfway to crippled. Statistically, the difference between Int 4 and Int 5 is much larger than the difference between Int 10 and Int 11. Based on the bell curve for 3d6, an ability score of 5 is anywhere from the high teens to the low 20s for percentile. About 10% of people are people are (officially) retarded, so retardation doesn't start until Int 4. I'd expect similar statistics for the other stats.

I consulted the wrong notes, or pressed the wrong numbers, or something. Those numbers are, as you observed, completely wrong. Mental retardation starts at the lower end of Int 6, based on the 3d6 bell curve and retardation statistics a quick google search got me. Int/Wis/Cha 7 is anywhere from the 16th percentile to the 25th percentile as far as intelligence/sanity/confidence goes, which is notably deficient but not crippling. Int 8 is the 26th percentile to the 36th percentile, which again is not horrible. 1 out of every 4 people would be Int 8 or lower, and they don't fail at life. [[these statistics may again be off; since I've been wrong once, don't trust me]]


If that's the reason, then Intelligence should also help you with bluff because you can figure out a more elaborate lie.
Then we get into dual-stat skills, which is a whole other issue. Based on this discussion, I'd place Concentration as Wisdom with a Constitution check to give a synergy bonus or something.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-20, 07:42 AM
Considering this, why do I see so many careful and calculating wizards who always have themselves a contingency plan when they have a Wisdom of 6? Why do I see so many brave, confident barbarians who believe in their power and always put themselves first when they have a Cha of 5 or 4?

As far as the wizards - you seem to be attributing Int to Wis.


Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.


Wisdom describes a character’s willpower, common sense, perception, and intuition. While Intelligence represents one’s ability to analyze information, Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings.

Planning is a result of logic, it doesn't require knowing anything about your surroundings but instead is simply a matter of considering what situations might possibly occur and preparing for them in advance. Now, planning for some specific detail might require Wisdom to notice it in the first place, but the having plans for logical possibilities is pure Int. Wis only comes into effect in the acquisition of information, not how the Wizard utilizes his reasoning ability.

As far as Charisma - there you have more of a point. However, it only determines the force of personality not the personality itself, and willpower would probably come into effect on the situation you described as well. It's partially that some people may just not be roleplaying their attributes, partially you overstating the effect of Charisma, and partially that you've confused having a low Cha with having both a low Cha and Wis at the same time.

Malacode
2009-09-20, 07:47 AM
I disagree with this based on the idea that the average is 10-11, and animals are at 3. Int 5 should probably not be able to function decently in society, apart from a Lennie-esque brute force worker who needs a personal supervisor.


The thing is, the scale is quite small. Charisma 5-6 is half way to being disabled by it, and Cha 7 is only 1 step above that. When I say mental help, I mean Psychiatrist, special treatment by those close (Constant build-ups needed), and somebody to help them be more assertive. Alone, they would be getting conned by everyone who tried, simply because they wouldn't stand against it, whether or not they could figure it out.



Just adding my two cents here...
This point only applies if you assume the mental ability scale to be linear. I would argue that it is not. Apart from the bell-curve argument put forward by Foryn, there is another method of showing this. The "Bonus spells/day" table. A caster with a casting stat of 12 has only a single bonus spell of level one. At 14 *stat*, that becomes 1 at level one, 1 at level 2. 16 and it becomes 1/1/1.... And so on. Improving a mental ability score by two grants ever-improving benefits as the score gets higher and higher, which is obvious to anywone who realises that a 3rd level spell slot is better than a 2nd level one, which is better than a 1st level slot. I haven't explained myself well, but I hope you can see my logic.

Sliver
2009-09-20, 07:48 AM
Then we get into dual-stat skills, which is a whole other issue. Based on this discussion, I'd place Concentration as Wisdom with a Constitution check to give a synergy bonus or something.

Dual-stat skills is a great idea that should have been used from the start.. Sometimes I just give the STR bonus to intimidate instead of the CHA penalty to the fighter, just cuz I feel like it, but the fighter used it to ROAR at the frightened NPC that they just saw... But having a check or something so that 2 stats effect one skill is great, although not always should be used..

Altair_the_Vexed
2009-09-20, 07:57 AM
I guess the point the OP is making is valid independent of the subtleties of the ability scores involved: someone low CHA is rarely likeable, and is likely just going to be ignored someone with low WIS lacks basic mental resilience and dedication the traits are not very heroic

However, if you do it right, such flaws can be good role playing opportunities.
I really enjoy playing high INT low WIS characters - they're really smart, so they've never built up much of store of common sense and tend to go with the first good-seeming idea they come up with.
A low CHA can be a good source of angst for a character, driving them to do brave and impressive things to win acclaim.

Anyway - when we use the default or elite arrays, those dump stats aren't so low, they're just lower than average.

Vangor
2009-09-20, 08:14 AM
Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

I believe you are sincerely wrong about Charisma as this has nothing specified for self-confidence. Low Charisma means despite great self-confidence you would be incapable of inspiring others to a cause or others within the cause to redouble efforts and similar. An example might be the least charismatic Orc one has seen, no sense of manners or etiquette or capacity to negotiate, who is absolutely egotistical due to his tremendous strength which he uses to control a massive tribe.

My own Orc Barbarian/Fighter has a 4 in Charisma, by virtue of point buy, being an Orc, and the Pathetic flaw on Charisma. Any encounter, whether haggling with a merchant, negotiating with a villain, simply gathering quests, and similar is often through threat of violence, usually indirect. With his unimpressive 6 Wisdom, he hasn't quite gleaned the problem this creates. Fortunately, with a 12 Intelligence, while he will Rage and charge the supposed offending party without consideration for peril, he is smart enough to consider his own tactics with what he is currently facing such that he will note the robed man to be the most dangerous, not his larger sidekick.


If that's the reason, then Intelligence should also help you with bluff because you can figure out a more elaborate lie.

More elaborate lies are not better lies, nor are you suddenly more believable. Lying is all about making the other person believe what you say, and needing to tell an unbelievable story is a situation modifier.

Melamoto
2009-09-20, 08:46 AM
I believe you are sincerely wrong about Charisma as this has nothing specified for self-confidence. Low Charisma means despite great self-confidence you would be incapable of inspiring others to a cause or others within the cause to redouble efforts and similar. An example might be the least charismatic Orc one has seen, no sense of manners or etiquette or capacity to negotiate, who is absolutely egotistical due to his tremendous strength which he uses to control a massive tribe.
It doesn't say that, no. But "Force of Personality" typically means the force of your personality. A weak personality means a weak mind, means a low self-confidence. You can feel personally proud of what you do, you can believe you are better than some others, but you will never truly feel better for or about it, and will always have doubts.


My own Orc Barbarian/Fighter has a 4 in Charisma, by virtue of point buy, being an Orc, and the Pathetic flaw on Charisma. Any encounter, whether haggling with a merchant, negotiating with a villain, simply gathering quests, and similar is often through threat of violence, usually indirect. With his unimpressive 6 Wisdom, he hasn't quite gleaned the problem this creates.
This would be more or less a correct way to play him, but with a charisma of 4, he shouldn't even be comfortable talking. A 4 in ANY stat means you need serious help. Strength, you have a completely frail body; Constitution, you have bad health and a weak and brittle body; Dexterity, you are so stiff and clumsy you can barely walk without falling over; Intelligence, you probably can barely even talk (If at all); Wisdom, you are clinically insane; and Charisma, you have the self confidence, personality, and assertiveness of a brick.


Fortunately, with a 12 Intelligence, while he will Rage and charge the supposed offending party without consideration for peril, he is smart enough to consider his own tactics with what he is currently facing such that he will note the robed man to be the most dangerous, not his larger sidekick.
What exactly does Charisma mean to you? Do you feel it is entirely your social skills? Because that is not correct, and he can be intelligent enough to think of the right targets, but put it through the brain processes of a Cha 4 character. You wouldn't say it out of fear of ridicule, you wouldn't think to choose the target for yourself out of fear of messing things up, and you wouldn't think to ask out of fear of annoying them. If you're playing a character with 4 in a stat, be prepared for it to cripple him/her for life.


More elaborate lies are not better lies, nor are you suddenly more believable. Lying is all about making the other person believe what you say, and needing to tell an unbelievable story is a situation modifier.
That was just a random example. How about "Dexterity should help with Forgery because you can use fine hand movements to perfectly mimic handwriting"?

BobVosh
2009-09-20, 08:55 AM
Anyway, one of my players wanted 4 WIS (a crusader//FavSoul..) but I had some problem with that, saying that min 6 wis or I will force him to RP that (not the greatest RPer.. by far) and that I fail to see a god being proud of someone like that..

You obviously haven't heard the word of Kord.

You aren't going to have ALL these problems for a low stat. You can be ok looking with a low charisma, just an incredible jerk. As for confident low charisma barbarians? How many people liked that, and how fugly were they? Also charisma is a depth of personality, and I'm betting that barbie liked hitting things. Hard. Not much else.

My favorite decision for CHA falling to 0: You don't go into a coma, the party just rises up and destroys you. Obviously you were not meant to be, and some form of a fel abomination.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-09-20, 08:56 AM
This would be more or less a correct way to play him, but with a charisma of 4, he shouldn't even be comfortable talking. A 4 in ANY stat means you need serious help. Strength, you have a completely frail body; Constitution, you have bad health and a weak and brittle body; Dexterity, you are so stiff and clumsy you can barely walk without falling over; Intelligence, you probably can barely even talk (If at all); Wisdom, you are clinically insane; and Charisma, you have the self confidence, personality, and assertiveness of a brick.

Again, I disagree. If autism represents low Wisdom, Wis 4 is not autistic. It might be autistic, but it probably isn't. (Wis 3 is autistic). It might be in cloud cuckoo land, but it is not as bad as you make it out to be. Int 4 is retarded, but it can still speak. Cha 4 is socially retarded, which may be interpreted different ways. Str 4 can still bench 40 pounds :P

ericgrau
2009-09-20, 09:10 AM
If your common method is to kill and ask questions later, then dumping cha actually makes sense. If you want to roleplay a bit to reduce the need for fighting, then your cha better match. Blame the group not the stat there. Pumping cha to make you more "cool" while your strength and dex don't match is a nonsensical trap: action heroes that aren't focused on action first and cha second wouldn't be so cool in terms of action. They'd be cool in another way, probably just at manipulation b/c you've gone so far on cha.

A wizard with a high int and dumped wis could make extremely complicated contingency plans without batting an eye, but he'd be less aware of what's going on around him and perhaps forget things. That could hurt the execution, when he focuses on one thing in front but forgets about that other guy over there.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-20, 09:10 AM
Considering this, why do I see so many careful and calculating wizards who always have themselves a contingency plan when they have a Wisdom of 6? Why do I see so many brave, confident barbarians who believe in their power and always put themselves first when they have a Cha of 5 or 4?
Because, despite what the very short description of the ability scores states, there is a large difference between having a likable personality and having a high cha stat, just like there's not necessarily any relation between how fast your character is and his dex stat. You can e.g. apply int to your reflex defense, or str to social checks, and so forth.

In other words, the mechanical side of your character needn't decide how you roleplay. A character can be wise with a low wis score, or dumb with a high int stat, no problem. This doesn't work as well in most other roleplaying games, but then few games have something as nebulous as a wis score anyway.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-20, 09:19 AM
ITT: Melamoto tells us how we're roleplaying wrong.

Thanks for your help Melamoto!

Vangor
2009-09-20, 09:33 AM
But "Force of Personality" typically means the force of your personality. A weak personality means a weak mind, means a low self-confidence.

A weak personality may be played in this way, but this is one facet of being weak of personality. Many people have terrific self-confidence in their own abilities but are egotistical, stubborn, etc., which are weaknesses of personality. Many people compensate for low self-confidence by being brash, rude, and similar, too.


he shouldn't even be comfortable talking.

This is such a restrictive idea with how you want to perceive comfort with talking. My character might feel absolutely comfortable speaking, but his mannerisms, idioms, jokes, etc., are awkward, nonsensical, perhaps insulting, and how would one convey this except through low Charisma score without saying he is not self-confident? Or perhaps you believe every person in the world who has difficulties articulating thoughts, suffers from panic attacks before a crowd, convincing others, and similar?

For instance, I feel awkward before a crowd. I sweat profusely, my heart beats rapidly, my eyes wander, and similar. Further, without the crowd I tend to feel the same when the center of attention. Only problem is I am absolutely confident in my abilities to convince others of my position, to articulate and convey thoughts, and to control my mannerisms to where I don't come off as awkward. Am I Charismatic...or not?


That was just a random example. How about "Dexterity should help with Forgery because you can use fine hand movements to perfectly mimic handwriting"?

The problem may be you look towards d&d to be a reflection of how the real world works rather than a simplistic approximation for a rule set. Do you honestly believe Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, and Wisdom have nothing to do with swordsmanship? Certain base classes or feats may take advantage of each, but being swift, exact, enduring, cunning, intuitive, and wary will make you a greater swordsman and capable of inflicting greater harm. Do you believe simply being stronger should be analogous to being knowledgeable and practiced?

In the same manner, the six statistics are not the absolute facets of your character. The problem is further compounded by the short spectrum of negative modifiers. Were the spectrum absolute in progression, the man with 0 Strength lies helpless on the ground, as in the rules, and my Orc with a Strength of 22...? Does he suddenly gain the capacity to lift mountains?

The idea is a simplistic approximation of the world translated for a rule set. We could divide Charisma into Leadership, Magnetism, Oration, Confidence, and presumably others, begin arranging those on a continuum beginning around 20, allow modifiers are continually adding advantage as players progress, and begin dividing rules such as Diplomacy into Negotiation, Banter, actual Diplomacy, and probably further, and we might be venturing into a more realistic set. This is out of hand already, though, and we are on one path.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-20, 09:38 AM
And if what you said was the case, then why do people with 0 Charisma lose sapience?


Because 0 of any stat results in your charachter biting the dirt and ceasing to do...anything.

Ravens_cry
2009-09-20, 09:48 AM
And if what you said was the case, then why do people with 0 Charisma lose sapience?

No, you don't. You just go into a coma. Intelligence is the one that says your thinkie bits cease functioning.


Intelligence 0 means that the character cannot think and is unconscious in a coma-like stupor, helpless.
. . .
Charisma 0 means that the character is withdrawn into a catatonic, coma-like stupor, helpless.

Scroll down to Ability Score Loss. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm)

Melamoto
2009-09-20, 10:01 AM
For instance, I feel awkward before a crowd. I sweat profusely, my heart beats rapidly, my eyes wander, and similar. Further, without the crowd I tend to feel the same when the center of attention. Only problem is I am absolutely confident in my abilities to convince others of my position, to articulate and convey thoughts, and to control my mannerisms to where I don't come off as awkward. Am I Charismatic...or not?

That hit the nail on the head. As an example: I can't handle working anything out. My brain won't work above a snails pace. I couldn't figure out the whole of my times tables on a bad day. But I have a brilliant memory, and pick up concepts fairly quickly. I am vastly multilingual, and I am frequently able to come up with great plans on the spot. I know many skills, know many languages, but am as thick as a brick, and would never be able to truly master Wizardry, beyond being able to pick up the knowledge for a few cantrips. Am I Intelligent?

You're right in saying that abilities can't truly measure up to real life, and lack realism. That is completely true. But that also means that the complex ways in which character's minds work have to have some kind of balance of ability. And 4 in Charisma is so low that I have to say your character would have to be a bit worse than just unable to do anything good in a social situation. I'd put you at somewhere between Cha 6-8 inclusive.


No, you don't. You just go into a coma. Intelligence is the one that says your thinkie bits cease functioning.

I meant to write Sentience. But what I said is still technically correct.


Charisma 0 means that the character is withdrawn into a catatonic, coma-like stupor, helpless.

Sapience - ability to apply knowledge or experience or understanding or common sense and insight

kme
2009-09-20, 10:10 AM
For instance, I feel awkward before a crowd. I sweat profusely, my heart beats rapidly, my eyes wander, and similar. Further, without the crowd I tend to feel the same when the center of attention. Only problem is I am absolutely confident in my abilities to convince others of my position, to articulate and convey thoughts, and to control my mannerisms to where I don't come off as awkward. Am I Charismatic...or not?

I would say that you are not charismatic but you have the experience/knowledge to substitute for it in those situations. In D&D this would mean that you have the ranks in appropriate skill(s). Someone with 8 charisma and 4 ranks is still better at diplomacy than someone with 14 charisma and no ranks.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-20, 10:18 AM
Do what Fallout 2 did when you set a low intelligence. Everybody treats you like the idiot that you undoubtedly are. (Plus, your dialogue options are non-existent.)

People tend to be hostile and insulting and around characters with low charisma and are more willing to leap to conclusions about him.

Planescape: Torment, allowed you to simply reference your intelligence score, to win a game of chess or a debate.

Etcetera.


The de-emphasis on the mechanical importance of ability scores does not mean that ability scores are useless, or that it is necessarily superfluous to have a 3-18 range when it really comes down to "low, average, or high." On the contrary, ability scores remain an integral part of describing and defining the PC. However, the OD&D approach demands creativity and judgment from the players and the referee, apart from defined rules. For example, consider this quotation about the effects of Charisma: "...the charisma score is usable to decide such things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover." (Men & Magic p. 11) In other words, your ability scores are still meant to be taken into account, but exactly how they apply is left up to the players and the referee. (http://www.philotomy.com/#bonuses)

While I'm not 100% on his points on mechanical de-emphasis, I do agree that ability scores ought to be an RP resolution mechanism.

3.x is a bit odd in that the game retains the trademark ability scores and then sets out to define them in agonizing mechanical detail. It's a bit absurd that "simulationism" is undone by WOTC's inability to codify everything in human nature.

In any case, it means the DM probably has to do a bit of referee-work.

If for example, a Str 4 and Cha 18 man is about to get into a bar fight. His intimidate skill is through the roof. I'd probably simply rule that his low strength (i.e. scrawny appearance and not very tall) gives him a penalty if he tries scare his assailant(s) based on the virtue of his brute force.

Vangor
2009-09-20, 10:24 AM
I would say that you are not charismatic but you have the experience/knowledge to substitute for it in those situations. In D&D this would mean that you have the ranks in appropriate skill(s). Someone with 8 charisma and 4 ranks is still better at diplomacy than someone with 14 charisma and no ranks.

I could discuss this more fully, but this was more for the stark contrast. Truly, I possess nothing which would be considered training, knowledge, or experience equivalent to ranks, I am simply regarded as very capable of expressing my thoughts and convincing others; this might be more analogous to racial bonuses to skills, but this is not the main point. An uncharismatic character can be confident, or not, and can be a good speaker, or not, but this is an impact.

Yes, if we are speaking away from d&d, I am not charismatic. Within d&d...I don't know.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-20, 10:51 AM
I could discuss this more fully, but this was more for the stark contrast. Truly, I possess nothing which would be considered training, knowledge, or experience equivalent to ranks, I am simply regarded as very capable of expressing my thoughts and convincing others; this might be more analogous to racial bonuses to skills, but this is not the main point. An uncharismatic character can be confident, or not, and can be a good speaker, or not, but this is an impact.

Yes, if we are speaking away from d&d, I am not charismatic. Within d&d...I don't know.
If Wisdom is about being tranquil and being able to contextualize and control emotions, then I'd say that your lack of confidence is partly to do with a middling Wisdom score.

Also, being able to articulate oneself and convince others through logic is probably an Intelligence thing. It may have the pleasant side effect of being accompanied by a higher Charisma at the time or your rolling. Keep in mind that some people are not convinced by logic or by scholarly debate. People will judge you based on your background, appearance, authority, etcetera. So you may only be convincing to a specific kind of people (i.e. academics, career students, doctors, nerds, etc.)

My point is this. An Intelligence 18 and Charisma 14 are two separate scores, but they contextualize each other. He's probably going to meet expectations for what people think a smart person should act and look like. So when he speaks up, people tend to listen, hence why he has a relatively high Charisma.

An Intelligence 18 but a Charisma 6 might be the kind of person who looks and acts smart, but people don't like listening to him because he's overly critical or leaps to bizarre conclusions that appear publicly like non-sequiturs. Maybe he's overly sarcastic or condescending.

Ravens_cry
2009-09-20, 11:04 AM
Or they are a treasure trove of encyclopaedic knowledge that would often have come in handy, but is so shy they never speak up. The possibilities are combinational, and so are closer to infinity then the number of atoms in the known universe or seconds since the beginning of time.
I like the basic ambiguities of the ability scores. Otherwise, one could say the mortal sin of Pen and Paper RPG, "You're doing it wrong." The side effect is threads of this nature, but that is the price we must pay for the openness and freedom possible in tabletop roleplaying.

Vangor
2009-09-20, 11:10 AM
If Wisdom is about being tranquil and being able to contextualize and control emotions, then I'd say that your lack of confidence is partly to do with a middling Wisdom score.

This was towards the beginning of the discussion and continues to highlight my point about the inability of the six abilities to successfully cover a wide array of personality types or all the potential facets of personality. The notion of oration comes from Charisma as the modifier for Perform: Oratory, and all of the other social interaction skills possess Charisma, too. Taken from the description of Charisma, I am highly persuasive but I am not personally magnetic, nor am I a leader by most standards despite being highly assertive, and I have no confidence problems but I am not comfortable before audiences.

If we were to take the description of Charisma from the PHB, am I charismatic or not?


Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.

Bereft of attempting to contextualize and delve my interpretation about my own personality, this ability score does encapsulate those traits I am speaking of, and the flaw is I am strong in certain aspects and weak in others such that I might be accurately roleplayed along the spectrum with a low positive, nonexistent, or low negative modifier. Mechanical adjustments are, of course to be made.

In synopsis, the system is not an accurate reflection of the real world, which is not the point.

kme
2009-09-20, 01:04 PM
Yes, if we are speaking away from d&d, I am not charismatic. Within d&d...I don't know.
You can be, if you accept that you have the ranks in appropriate skill (i can try to prove it to you :smalltongue:). You may be overestimating ranks, they don't have to mean that you do some amazing things. It may just be that you can execute simple things well and that still requires practice.

Rainbownaga
2009-09-20, 01:17 PM
I was always under the impression that charisma was your ability to relate to others. You're force of personality meant your ability to impose your will on others; this has nothing to do with confidence, a bumbling self-conscious fool can be incredibly likeable and have people doing exactly what he wants dispite crying himself to sleep every night and an self-righteous fool can be full of self confidence but nobody takes him seriously (Anyone seen Johnny bravo?)

As for 0 charisma, when you lose the ability to relate to anyone, at all, even yourself and the world around you, you collapse into some kind of solipsism in drugs that effectively paralyzes you.

Strange, i can't seem to remember where i saw it all written down...

Lycar
2009-09-20, 02:56 PM
Hrmph... a lot of this discussion sounds like people who don't play D&D for the roleplaying but the tactical combat throw a fit for being accused of being 'bad roleplayers'.

Face it people, there are two basic categories of players:

a) Those who just want to be awesome and kill stuff. They evaluate everything for exactly one thing: Is it going to help kill things and take their stuff. STR, DEX, CON, check. INT,WIS,CHA pass.

b) Those who want to RP a specific character and, while still concerned about the effectiveness of their alter ego in the game world, are going to sacrifice raw power for versimilitude.

Yeah yeah, 'I can roleplay my INT 6, CHA 4 Ork-Babarian perfectly.'.

Sez you. Unless I actually see him inplay I doubt it. Plus, why is it that all the 'optimizers' always play either high-Int/Dex/Con grey elves or hight Str/Dex/Con fighter types. Certainly because they are characters with a rich and varied personality... yeah right, not buying it.

I don't have a problem with people who optimize their builds for combat performance. I have a problem with people who look down on other people because they don't try to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of their stat block.

Face it: If all you look for is optimization, there are only a handful of archtypes that will satisfy aour greed for power. You can play those, maybe even RP them properly, maybe even RP them great.

But some people prefer a slightly more broad range of characters. And they will gladly, say, start with a 14 or so in their main stat do they don't have to 'dump' anything.

And gues what? They are not 'playing the game wrong'.

They just don't play the optimization game.

And contrary to what some people on this board claim, I have yet to see a group where these two playstyles mix peacefully.

Conclusion: Assinging a low score to an attribute is a way to characterize for some, a way to save stat points for others.

Lycar

Rainbownaga
2009-09-20, 03:27 PM
Or they are a treasure trove of encyclopaedic knowledge that would often have come in handy, but is so shy they never speak up. The possibilities are combinational, and so are closer to infinity then the number of atoms in the known universe or seconds since the beginning of time.
I like the basic ambiguities of the ability scores. Otherwise, one could say the mortal sin of Pen and Paper RPG, "You're doing it wrong." The side effect is threads of this nature, but that is the price we must pay for the openness and freedom possible in tabletop roleplaying.

Agreed. Even the crunchy bits of D&D tend to be ambiguous, and a person's ability scores don't necessarily reflect their personality. If I want to play a character with 8 int and 18 charisma that uses big words and sounds intelligent, there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to if I can justify it- e.g. the character has no idea what half the words even mean, but pulls it off anyway and impresses people because of sheer moxie.

There's almost limitless ways that the ability scores can manifest, and trying to enforce a certain view of what certain ability scores mean is unnecessarily stifling.

(ps. this post will probably be ignored because of my low cha score :smalltongue:)

Kylarra
2009-09-20, 03:32 PM
----

TBH I find the all-14 character to be more boring and less useful than so-called "optimized" character who is only applicable in a few situations, most of which involve combat.

Admittedly, I still try to avoid having negative modifiers if I can, but having your primary stat at 14 is a death sentence for most characters, unless everyone in the group is that way.

Eldariel
2009-09-20, 04:05 PM
Hrmph... a lot of this discussion sounds like people who don't play D&D for the roleplaying but the tactical combat throw a fit for being accused of being 'bad roleplayers'.

Face it people, there are two basic categories of players:

a) Those who just want to be awesome and kill stuff. They evaluate everything for exactly one thing: Is it going to help kill things and take their stuff. STR, DEX, CON, check. INT,WIS,CHA pass.

b) Those who want to RP a specific character and, while still concerned about the effectiveness of their alter ego in the game world, are going to sacrifice raw power for versimilitude.

Yeah yeah, 'I can roleplay my INT 6, CHA 4 Ork-Babarian perfectly.'.

Sez you. Unless I actually see him inplay I doubt it. Plus, why is it that all the 'optimizers' always play either high-Int/Dex/Con grey elves or hight Str/Dex/Con fighter types. Certainly because they are characters with a rich and varied personality... yeah right, not buying it.

I don't have a problem with people who optimize their builds for combat performance. I have a problem with people who look down on other people because they don't try to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of their stat block.

Face it: If all you look for is optimization, there are only a handful of archtypes that will satisfy aour greed for power. You can play those, maybe even RP them properly, maybe even RP them great.

But some people prefer a slightly more broad range of characters. And they will gladly, say, start with a 14 or so in their main stat do they don't have to 'dump' anything.

And gues what? They are not 'playing the game wrong'.

They just don't play the optimization game.

And contrary to what some people on this board claim, I have yet to see a group where these two playstyles mix peacefully.

Conclusion: Assinging a low score to an attribute is a way to characterize for some, a way to save stat points for others.

Lycar

Not dumping anything makes for really uninteresting characters on that basis. "No flaws" is one of the defining features of the dreaded Mary Sues; every decent character should have at least one relevant flaw. If you drop your primary stats and pump your dumps, you're doing just that. Vary your dump stats, but don't remove them entirely; a completely rounded character is both, mechanically inferior and RP-wise less interesting to interact with by default (unless that's the character's shtick, but you have to be very careful there to not craft some "perfect personality"). Not saying you can't pull it off, but I'm surprised that you consider it somehow more interesting than a character with strengths and weaknesses.

And really, what do you think a Fighter is gonna focus practicing; his strength or his book knowledge? 'cause he isn't much of a fighter if he doesn't focus on the former. So in-game, your Str 14 - Int 16 Fighter makes precious little sense. Str 16, Int 16, sure. Str lower than Int though?


And what the hell? Str > Con > Int > Dex is a totally different Fighter than Str > Con > Cha > Wis and yet both can make fine characters for many character archetypes. Hell, Dex > Con > Int > Cha makes for a perfectly doable Fighter-shell. Playing functional characters doesn't preclude that. Right now I'm playing a Wizard with Cha 14. I don't get your complaint at all. Being efficient doesn't preclude making character personality-related decisions.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-20, 04:10 PM
Hrmph... a lot of this discussion sounds like people who don't play D&D for the roleplaying but the tactical combat throw a fit for being accused of being 'bad roleplayers'.

Man, all I got out of it was people discussing how to roleplay low attributes!


I don't have a problem with people who optimize their builds for combat performance. I have a problem with people who look down on other people because they don't try to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of their stat block.

But nobody in this thread is doing that.


But some people prefer a slightly more broad range of characters. And they will gladly, say, start with a 14 or so in their main stat do they don't have to 'dump' anything.

And gues what? They are not 'playing the game wrong'.

But nobody in this thread is accusing anyone of playing the game wrong.


Why are you complaining about things that nobody here has done?

Vangor
2009-09-20, 04:22 PM
But some people prefer a slightly more broad range of characters. And they will gladly, say, start with a 14 or so in their main stat do they don't have to 'dump' anything.

To be frank, I enjoy optimizing my characters as a role. This has been the first Barbarian I have played. This has been the first use of point buy, as well. Generally, my favorite role is Bard, and my favorite PrC is Divine Prankster. I vastly prefer sessions with minimal combat, because combat to me is generally tedious compared to what can occur in talk and exploration. We lacked any heavier member for melee, and all too often a person assumes the mantle of Human Fighter; hence, I sought to change this.


I have a problem with people who look down on other people because they don't try to squeeze the last bit of efficiency out of their stat block.

Want to tell me where I am noting anything close to this? Because you appear to be calling me out what with the note about the 6 Intelligence, 4 Charisma, Orcish Barbarian. You do seem to have a problem with people who optimize a build, because you seem to assume my Barbarian is born of optimization and thus suggest I cannot possibly be roleplaying my character properly despite an utter lack of any comment which would lead you to reasonably assume optimization.

If I wanted to be all-powerful in melee combat, I would be using a Warblade or venture towards Bear Warrior/Warshaper and/or choose Dungeoncrasher and progress further along Fighter while including Shock Trooper as opposed to simply Power Attack. If I wanted to be all-powerful, I would be an Archivist.

warrl
2009-09-20, 05:13 PM
A lot of narrative role-players don't really have a dump stat. 4E tries to force one on you (the standard point-buy gives you an 8 in one stat - but within standard rules you can't lower it below that or lower anything else below 10) and I routinely drop a racial bonus on it.

To me, one of the earmarks is your backstory, and there's a very simple question: how long is it? I know that some people play characters with a short paragraph worth of backstory, and that's all they have thought out about it. My current character, I gave the DM a full-page summary of the backstory; the full story is at 4 pages and includes a murder and a funeral, and I'm only maybe a third of the way through it.

(On reading the summary, the DM commented on the number of hooks I left him... :eek::biggrin:)

I'd say that if your backstory is over a page, you probably don't have a genuine dump stat - that is, a stat you left low because you needed the points somewhere else. (You could still have a stat that is low because you want your character to be weak in that area. That isn't really a dump stat.)

Milskidasith
2009-09-20, 05:24 PM
A lot of narrative role-players don't really have a dump stat. 4E tries to force one on you (the standard point-buy gives you an 8 in one stat - but within standard rules you can't lower it below that or lower anything else below 10) and I routinely drop a racial bonus on it.

To me, one of the earmarks is your backstory, and there's a very simple question: how long is it? I know that some people play characters with a short paragraph worth of backstory, and that's all they have thought out about it. My current character, I gave the DM a full-page summary of the backstory; the full story is at 4 pages and includes a murder and a funeral, and I'm only maybe a third of the way through it.

(On reading the summary, the DM commented on the number of hooks I left him... :eek::biggrin:)

I'd say that if your backstory is over a page, you probably don't have a genuine dump stat - that is, a stat you left low because you needed the points somewhere else. (You could still have a stat that is low because you want your character to be weak in that area. That isn't really a dump stat.)

So you're saying that backstory length determines if your character has a dump stat or not? That's a bad assumption to make; my character in one game has a couple pages long backstory and is mechanically efficient, and his dumped strength is not part of the character; he just dumped strength because it makes little sense for a Psion to have it. His dumped charisma, however, is somewhat RP based; he's a party face, but he doesn't really care about people in general, he just knows how they work, and I felt that 12 dexterity was worth more than a positive charisma modifier.

Absurdly long backstories never really made sense to me, honestly. Yes, your backstory can have a few plot hooks. But writing about a character's entire life up to that point is simply a lot of extraneous detail; it's why I don't like reading Tolkein (he crafts a beautiful world, but dammit I want to have something happen every so often!) I'm trying to write any character backstories so that it explains why they are in their class, why they are where they started, and explains why they have the feats and personalities they have.

warrl
2009-09-20, 05:37 PM
So you're saying that backstory length determines if your character has a dump stat or not? That's a bad assumption to make; my character in one game has a couple pages long backstory and is mechanically efficient, and his dumped strength is not part of the character; he just dumped strength because it makes little sense for a Psion to have it. His dumped charisma, however, is somewhat RP based; he's a party face, but he doesn't really care about people in general, he just knows how they work, and I felt that 12 dexterity was worth more than a positive charisma modifier.

Absurdly long backstories never really made sense to me, honestly.

Well, first, I did say "probably".

And second, no, it isn't that a long backstory somehow prevents you from having a dump stat. It's that the sort of player who creates a long backstory is less likely to abandon a stat as useless, and then avoid using it, than the sort of player who is satisfied with a paragraph or two.

Milskidasith
2009-09-20, 05:41 PM
Well, first, I did say "probably".

And second, no, it isn't that a long backstory somehow prevents you from having a dump stat. It's that the sort of player who creates a long backstory is less likely to abandon a stat as useless, and then avoid using it, than the sort of player who is satisfied with a paragraph or two.

That's still a bad assumption to make. What's the difference, really, between a dwarf with 10 charisma and 8 charisma, when it relates to your backstory? Either way, they aren't going to be very good with people. Even if you write a long backstory, it's quite possible you dump a stat because it's mechanically efficient, and even if you write a short backstory, you might dump a stat because it makes sense for the character.

Assuming that backstory length determines things is going to be a broad and more than likely inaccurate generalization at best, and a way to blind yourself from how good a player somebody actually is at worst (Oh, he wrote a long backstory, he must be a great RPer! Oh, his backstory is short and he has a low stat; he's got to be a big bad optimizer!)

Umael
2009-09-20, 05:52 PM
High-Intelligence Low-Wisdom Wizard does just fine with long, complicated plans, but can't handle LA rush-hour traffic.

Also, on long character backgrounds - you don't have to write that much, but if you want to write a lot, go ahead. Just make sure it is well written.

Lycar
2009-09-20, 06:19 PM
To be frank, I enjoy optimizing my characters as a role. This has been the first Barbarian I have played. This has been the first use of point buy, as well.

...

Want to tell me where I am noting anything close to this? Because you appear to be calling me out what with the note about the 6 Intelligence, 4 Charisma, Orcish Barbarian. You do seem to have a problem with people who optimize a build, because you seem to assume my Barbarian is born of optimization and thus suggest I cannot possibly be roleplaying my character properly despite an utter lack of any comment which would lead you to reasonably assume optimization.

Sorry, no I am not picking at you personally. There are people who love to play extreme characters and do it well. But as some other poster mentioned, the usual M.O. is that players never get to be confronted with the down sides of their dump stats.

Look at it his way: Imagine your barbarian is a great warrior, both from his background and from his statistics, then he can, say, slay on average X extra goblins on a given day.

What this comes down to in actual gameplay is that the GM just has to send in that extra X goblins to make an encounter challenging for you.

An Str 14 barbarian would not kill that many foes on average, because he hits a bit less often and does a bit less damage. So the GM has to confront you with less enemies, so that you don't get overwhelmed.

Both characters end up fighting the forces of evil (or good as the case may be) and ideally manage to just overcome their challenges.

But one of them paid for his extra fighting prowess with glaring deficiencies.

Don't get me wrong: If you enjoy playing this guy being treated as a dangerous animal by the people around him, without him even realizing it, more power to you. But too many people expect to get to eat their cake and keep it, that is to say: They get upset when the NPCs reactions to them is... less then favourable. If they get bad deals in shops. If people refuse to be impressed by their supposed awesomenes.

If you ask me, social interaction in D&D needs combat rules.
Your INT represents your strength (of argument), your wisdom your dexterity (know when to duck, i.e., shut up) and finally, your charisma represents your self-esteem (i.e. how long you are willing to keep arguing before conceding defeat (or throwing a fit, depending on personality)).

For a simple system, let CHA be your 'hit points', INT gives a bonus to arguments (to-hit and damage), WIS modifies the 'AC'.

People do a base of, say 1d6 worth of damage, modified by social status (an authority figure has a much better position to bargain from to begin with, while an outcast/slave/beggar etc. will have a hard time getting his voice heard). Maybe shift die size up/down a step for each level above/below middle class. Strangers and foreigners take a -1 step penalty for being outsiders.

Naturally, there should be some class features to modify this. For example, a martial character should have an easier time dealing with a fellow man at arms then with a scholar.

And bards would get a decent bonus, rogues and clerics a fair one. Druids and rangers should not receive a penalty however. They may stay away from civilisation but that doesn't mean they can't relate to other people.

And then, haggling becomes a grapple with the shopkeeper. Ye who has any charisma left at the end of the haggling gets to modify the base price in his favour.

And when the sheriff beats the party in intimidation, they go along as peacefully as if they had been knocked out cold in regular combat. Jst enforce the rule that they need to start a real fight while they still have enough 'will to resist' left and enforce the rule. Then this puts an end to the 'my PCs never surrender and I can't just go and kill thm off' problem too. :smallbiggrin:

I bet if such rules were in play, we would see a lot less dump stats around. :smallamused:

Lycar

Kylarra
2009-09-20, 09:21 PM
I've played exalted with social combat rules, and I must say that I did not enjoy it very much. So... yeah.

Lycar
2009-09-21, 02:22 PM
I've played exalted with social combat rules, and I must say that I did not enjoy it very much. So... yeah.

Okay. So what exactly is bad about it? Is it that the dice decide the actions of your charcater? Your alter ego? Why is it that we can accept the death of a character wehn the dice tell us he is at -11 HP but balk at being forced to step down in a duel of will by the decree of the dice?

Is it because we can't stomach our 'own free will' to be impeded upon?

Maybe that is the same reason why so many people conveniently 'forget' about the downsides of dump stats?

Lycar

Ledeas
2009-09-21, 02:27 PM
Okay. So what exactly is bad about it? Is it that the dice decide the actions of your charcater? Your alter ego? Why is it that we can accept the death of a character wehn the dice tell us he is at -11 HP but balk at being forced to step down in a duel of will by the decree of the dice?

Is it because we can't stomach our 'own free will' to be impeded upon?

Maybe that is the same reason why so many people conveniently 'forget' about the downsides of dump stats?

Lycar

As a Dm of 2nd ed. Chr. really is a dump stat, but this guy has got a real good point.

Alignment is kind of that way also. So many people play CN so they can do whatever fits their mood at the time.

Eldariel
2009-09-21, 02:28 PM
Okay. So what exactly is bad about it? Is it that the dice decide the actions of your charcater? Your alter ego? Why is it that we can accept the death of a character wehn the dice tell us he is at -11 HP but balk at being forced to step down in a duel of will by the decree of the dice?

Is it because we can't stomach our 'own free will' to be impeded upon?

It's kinda cool for our roleplaying to have an effect on that in a roleplaying game; D&D involves rolling a die too, it just doesn't completely replace the human component.


Maybe that is the same reason why so many people conveniently 'forget' about the downsides of dump stats?

What basis do you have for claiming anyone "forgets" the downsides of their dump stats?

Sinfire Titan
2009-09-21, 02:32 PM
Considering this, why do I see so many careful and calculating wizards who always have themselves a contingency plan when they have a Wisdom of 6? Why do I see so many brave, confident barbarians who believe in their power and always put themselves first when they have a Cha of 5 or 4?

Because a Wis of 6 could mean absolute paranoia. Thus justifying why he has all of those defenses. The Cha just means he puts his foot in his mouth whenever he talks, as Courage is based on Wis (Fear effects target your Will save, not a Charisma check).

I'd be making more comments, but I have enough infractions as it is.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-21, 04:14 PM
Okay. So what exactly is bad about it? Is it that the dice decide the actions of your charcater? Your alter ego? Why is it that we can accept the death of a character wehn the dice tell us he is at -11 HP but balk at being forced to step down in a duel of will by the decree of the dice?

Is it because we can't stomach our 'own free will' to be impeded upon?

Why don't you just get a blog if you're going to ignore what people are posting so you can rant about optimisers? Because, I mean, it's pretty obvious that you're just looking for an argument here, rather than looking for what people actually mean.


Better yet, you could let it go and not rant about the way people play DnD at all. But maybe that's going to far.

Lycar
2009-09-21, 04:36 PM
It's kinda cool for our roleplaying to have an effect on that in a roleplaying game; D&D involves rolling a die too, it just doesn't completely replace the human component.

Sure. And so does slaying the BBEG that has been plaguing the game world. It just occurs to me that folks are counting too much on their GMs (who usually are friends too) not to screw them over in RP situation, even if their character's social stats are abysmal. It is not so bad when the player in question is content to do the H&S and leave the talking to guy who plays the bard.

But there are folks out there who dump cjarisma and still demand that their 'impressive physical/martial/magical prowess' ough to cow people into submission.


What basis do you have for claiming anyone "forgets" the downsides of their dump stats?

Because I happen to have played in a group where the above scenario happened. Granted, it was not as extreme as I described it above, but the tendency was there. Makes one feel kinda bitter about it when one took it upon oneself to be the party face/skillmonkey.

Besides, take a look at the usual suspects in the char op boards. The advice is always the same: Dump everything that doesn't directly translate into combat power. If you are capable to level a small town without blinking, who is going to stand up to you? Might makes right after all. So the only social interaction is intimidation apparently. Without putting ranks into the skill to boot...

Lycar

Kylarra
2009-09-21, 06:31 PM
Okay. So what exactly is bad about it? Is it that the dice decide the actions of your charcater? Your alter ego? Why is it that we can accept the death of a character wehn the dice tell us he is at -11 HP but balk at being forced to step down in a duel of will by the decree of the dice?

Is it because we can't stomach our 'own free will' to be impeded upon?

Maybe that is the same reason why so many people conveniently 'forget' about the downsides of dump stats?

LycarSure thing.

Part of it is that the rules aren't that great.

Part of it is that it can allow NPCs to rewrite your character's personality. (Building/Degrading Intimacies and even Motivation)

Part of it is that every casual conversation can turn into an attack on the above and burn your Willpower, which is a fairly valuable resource.

Part of it is that in every game not Dragonblooded (ie all the 'normal' Exalts), you're already paranoid as hell without having to worry about even talking to that NPC for fear that he'll try to convince you to kill yourself (slight hyperbole, but not implausible).

Ultimately yes, having the DM play your character/tell you how to play your character* is simply not fun.

*within limits of course as they are the ultimate arbiter in the game, but this caveat is only here for pedants who will point out that in situations X, Y and Z, the DM is perfectly justified in shooting you down and I would probably agree that in those situations he/she is.

Grumman
2009-09-21, 06:45 PM
So the only social interaction is intimidation apparently. Without putting ranks into the skill to boot...
Intimidate is not necessary to make people fear you, it is only necessary to make people fear you more than they would if they had their wits about them. Otherwise a low intimidate score would be just as useful a tool, to encourage suicidal confidence.

It doesn't matter if you have 0 ranks in intimidate. If the last 30 guys that said "no" got obliterated, the next guy is going to consider how to not become the 31st.

Lycar
2009-09-21, 07:05 PM
It doesn't matter if you have 0 ranks in intimidate. If the last 30 guys that said "no" got obliterated, the next guy is going to consider how to not become the 31st.

And that is a bit of a problem right there: It totally breaks versimilitude when that guy can not make #31 see things his way. Yet, if the GM was to stay adamant and declare 'Even with your circumstance modifiers up the wazoo you still can't beat the Intimidate DC because of your low charisma and zero ranks in intimidate. The NPC spits in your face and tells you that he'd rather die then betray his King & Country'.

The point is: Your Obliterator should have ranks in intimidate, just by virtue of being such an unstoppable force of Death & Destruction. Characterization and stats should go hand-in-hand. But if above character's player obstinately refuses to put any ranks in Intimidate, what is the DM to do? Especially if another player did invest in charisma and Intimidate but doesn't match his destructive power?

Remember 3.0? When fighters didn't have Intinidate as a class skill?

F: "Soo... just that I get this right: My big burly fighter in chaos warrior spiked plate with skull motive and with his big ass flaming sword is less intimidating then the halfling rogue in his leather jerkin and short sword? How does that even work?"

H: "The halfling just tells them: 'Do as I say or I'll tell that tincan over there to hurt you. Much.'"

F: "...!"

So yeah, there is a bit of a discrepancy in apperance (you would expect the fighter guy to have an easier time scaring people) and actual gameplay results (rogue beats fighter's Intimidate score by around 6-7 points. On level 1.) Fortunately they fixed that issue with 3.5 .

So what it comes down to: Players shouldn't be jerks. If you want your character to have certain qualities, give them to him. Even if that means less power. Power is irrelevant anyway because your DM is supposed to challenge the party, not to produce TPKs. And it makes his job much, much easier if the party is at least on almost the same level of power.

Lycar

Arastor
2009-09-22, 02:06 AM
The point is: Your Obliterator should have ranks in intimidate, just by virtue of being such an unstoppable force of Death & Destruction. Characterization and stats should go hand-in-hand. But if above character's player obstinately refuses to put any ranks in Intimidate, what is the DM to do? Especially if another player did invest in charisma and Intimidate but doesn't match his destructive power?


Your obliterator could also go around as a very unassuming guy that everyone seems to underestimate because of a lack of intimidation.

For a person who has intimidate without the power to back it up, he might be a naturally intimidating guy that everyone shies away from in confrontations.

A low charisma could mean just about anything, but frankly, a large hulking fighter who can scare the crap out of people by grunting, can be less intimidating than a small wiry guy who can say 'I know where your children are hiding' with an unnerving gaze.

Grumman
2009-09-22, 04:14 AM
And that is a bit of a problem right there: It totally breaks versimilitude when that guy can not make #31 see things his way.
Yes, it does, and that's why the DM is an idiot if he decides that a low Intimidate roll is just as effective in making the target react irrationally out of some sort of anti-logic. For instance, a bus has 0 Charisma and 0 ranks in Intimidate, but that doesn't mean you're going to stand there like a moron and get yourself squished.

You don't need Intimidate for someone to act based on a perfectly rational fear, just like you don't need Diplomacy to convince the bandit that he wants to take your coinpurse or Bluff to convince the guard that sticking his hand in the torch would hurt.

Lycar
2009-09-22, 05:05 PM
You don't need Intimidate for someone to act based on a perfectly rational fear, just like you don't need Diplomacy to convince the bandit that he wants to take your coinpurse or Bluff to convince the guard that sticking his hand in the torch would hurt.

Of course not. But then, what good is the Intimidate skill?

Certainly it would be used to allow that halfling rogue to have just that air of dread around him that makes people never ever 'call his bluff'. Maybe he can follow through on his threats or not. But he manages to unnerve people enough that they don't feel like finding out the hard way.

But with the big bruiser? He would have to smash a few skulls to establish that, yes, he is capable of and willing to do you bodily harm and not just a poser in a fancy costume.

But then we get a problem: The problem called 'My gun is my skill list'.

If one is comfortable with that kind of gameplay, fine. But many people aren't. Dump stats ought to have a drawback. Low WIS and CHA could/should mean the character is easily manipulated by a mastermind type for example. Like the party bard. Or even the wizard who didn't dump his non-INT mental stats.

But what do you do when the player flat out refuses to play along? Drop rocks and tell him to stop being a jerk with his next character?

Lycar

Milskidasith
2009-09-22, 05:14 PM
The intimidate skill is good for convincing people that you could kill them before showing them that you are, in fact, perfectly capable of killing them. That's the point.

Godskook
2009-09-22, 05:27 PM
Of course not. But then, what good is the Intimidate skill?

It makes you good at intimidating people without actual effort. I used to run a Dagorhir group for a few months, and I was among the best skilled of the group, and effectively, the boss. I weigh 250+lbs, and normally wield a longsword. Among my group, I never intimidated anyone.

Intimidate is more like bluff than diplomacy. Once the NPC is convinced that fear is the appropriate response, it is no longer an intimidate check, just like if you can present hard proof, you don't need to roll a bluff check.

People can also be really bad at intimidating others, even to the point of absurdity. Watch some One Piece, and admire Ussop's dissertation on the subject. Thing is, he's far more dangerous than anyone ever gives him credit for. He's capable of going toe-to-toe with Luffy*, and anyone that can do that should be feared across the globe.

*The fight between Luffy and Ussop is my favorite mundane v. super-powered fight ever. Ussop's tactics and capabilities aren't anything more than he's already shown himself capable of, but his preparations play to Luffy's weaknesses(read: tactics) so well that he almost succeeds. Truly an epic fight.

Akal Saris
2009-09-22, 06:26 PM
I'll be honest: my characters are usually full of dump stats that I don't consistently roleplay, largely because the stats are only the beginning of the character concept that I have. Here's the conjurer I just made for Pathfinder, and those who hate dump stats may wish to avert their eyes:
Str: 7
Dex: 16
Con: 14
Int: 20
Wis: 7
Cha: 7

Notice the extreme ups and downs? Yeah. Doesn't really impact the character's personality too much. The character is played as an arabic Jafar-wanabe ("Salaam and good evening, good traveler!") who worships devils and aspires to summon his own efreeti servants one day, so he's far more impacted by his faction, alignment and background than his stats.

In the last 2 sessions, there have been a lot of jokes about the weak wizard as I played up my character's complete aversion to physical labor (and failed 4 DC 7 jump checks in a row as well). But I haven't really RP'd the low wisdom or charisma, because it's not particularly fun to me to play a shy character, and a 1st level wizard who rushes into every situation without thinking is going to die fast.

I suppose I could say that his acidic wit is due to his low charisma, or that his willingness to take any adventuring job, no matter now crazy as long as they'll advance his position within his faction, is a sign of his low wisdom, but really they aren't. They're just features of his personality that I've developed.

I have no problems with PCs who RP their dump stats - it's how the PC has chosen to define his character. But I think it's equally valid to see them as a possible starting point for a character, not the be-all, end-all of how your character reacts to the world.

Here's a secret: the system rewards players highly for dumping certain stats (especially Pathfinder's PB, even moreso than 3.5), and punishes them inordinately for choosing poor mechanical choices as a "roleplayer." If you force yourself to conform to the system's strict definition of character traits, then you will also be confined to a very narrow set of archetypes that you can play effectively - or you can choose to play ineffective characters and expand your archetypes. But if you just roleplay the character that you want to be without stressing too much over your stats, then you can expand your archetypes and play effective characters.

I take the same view towards feats and prestige classes - if you like the mechanics, see if you and your DM can adapt the flavor to your character as well. Sometimes it's easy to do, other times the mechanics are too closely tied to a particular thing.

And a lot of this boils down to game mechanics being poorly implemented and defined, not to mention that idiocy that occurs when RPing is tied too tightly to in-game stats. In the game with the wizard I mentioned earlier, the bard PC insists on taking the lead in every single social situation, and even though his character is rude and abrasive, his +14 to Diplomacy means that he's going to succeed every time compared to my cultured wizard and his upbringing in a society that values conflict resolution, who will fail every time with his -2.

Even if I spent full skill ranks in the skill (only half value because its not a class skill), he would at best be decent at something that should come naturally to the character. Why bother when there are skills that instead reward my character for being designed as a typical wizard, and I can just avoid the poorly implemented Diplomacy skill system by roleplaying well? It's absolutely frustrating that some classes cannot, by design, roleplay well within the standard game rules.

In theory, I really dislike the skills tied to social skills in 3.5, especially coming from a 2E background. In practice, I usually take 1 social skill and level it up, and try to rely on that one skill whenever feasible, just in case the DM asks for a roll. As a DM, I almost never ask for a social skill roll from my players unless they ask me to do so (one PC always plays diplomancers and loves showing off her +27 to Diplomacy), because the ones who are playing "party faces" already are generally doing a good job at convincing NPCs, and I'd rather ignore the skill checks and encourage the fighter-type PCs to roleplay, than to discourage them from talking because they don't have talkie stuff as a class skill.

My friend refuses to play 4E because she always plays rogues in 3.5, which have all the social skills (and she takes all of them), but in 4E they can only bluff or intimidate - so she can't actually just be diplomatic to somebody if she wants to have a realistic chance to succeed at a standard skill challenge - she has to either trick them or scare them into doing what the character wants.

Lycar's POV is almost opposite of my own: how ridiculous is it that in a role-playing game, only rogues and bards are supposed to be allowed to talk to the NPCs? They have in-game powers besides being the party face, after all. My new wizard has a 20 Int, but it doesn't mean he won't let anyone else do any thinking in the game - it just means that when it comes to making skill checks, he's going to roll very well on the knowledges. Like alignment, stats should be a guide, not a straitjacket.

Off-topic: I think Luffy is a good example of a character who mechanically probably dumped wisdom and charisma, with 0 ranks in social skills (Look at his Bluff and Sense Motives!), but still functions as an effective leader because of his never-give-up personality and sheer physical endurance. I mean, in D&D/Pathfinder terms he's probably Str 18/Dex 10/Con 18/Int 9/Wis 7/Cha 7, but that doesn't stop him at all.

SparkMandriller
2009-09-22, 07:45 PM
But what do you do when the player flat out refuses to play along? Drop rocks and tell him to stop being a jerk with his next character?

I don't think killing players because they RPed threatening someone is all that justified. Because, y'know, that's kinda what getting information out of someone by reminding him of all the people you've killed is.

I thought you supported roleplaying, but here you are trying to get rid of it in favour of someone rolling intimidate and hoping they get a high number. Why you gotta hate on the roleplayers?

Yukitsu
2009-09-22, 08:22 PM
My historic retort has always been "So basically, you want to be as effective as possible, but you want everyone to look at you with shiny glossy eyes because you're so convincing. Guess you'll want to roll high stats then." RPing stats that you don't have and expecting the game to roll over for you is the same as me beating up my DM and rolling for diplomacy. (black belt in karate, but rather poor conversationalist.)

Ravens_cry
2009-09-22, 08:46 PM
On the other hand, making an argument that would likely convince the other party takes a lot of effort.A lot more, surely, than simply rolling the die and adding the modifiers. Therefore, it would be very disappointing to have that effort go to waste by a low roll. In my opinion, one should combine the efforts. A relatively poor argument could be boosted by a good roll, while a bad roll can be boosted by a good argument. By no means should it become "I ask the king for his castle. *roll* Sweet! Natural 20 and 45 points modifier. Iz in ur castle, makings itz mi castle!" Conversely,
". . .and that's how you can split the harvest and still have enough to feed your people, while making a tidy profit on the side" *rolls 1* 1 "THAG KILLS YOU!". would be equally disappointing in play.*

*Unless you want to play it that way.

Milskidasith
2009-09-22, 08:46 PM
My historic retort has always been "So basically, you want to be as effective as possible, but you want everyone to look at you with shiny glossy eyes because you're so convincing. Guess you'll want to roll high stats then." RPing stats that you don't have and expecting the game to roll over for you is the same as me beating up my DM and rolling for diplomacy. (black belt in karate, but rather poor conversationalist.)

Not everybody is suggesting you just RP everything, though. What's been suggested is that certain things basically give you a circumstance modifier to intimidate or other social skills bigger than it's possible to beat. Basically, even if you have low charisma, if you just ripped the barkeepers head off and used it to club the guardsmen to death, the mayor is damn sure going to be ready to give in to your demands whether or not you have high intimidate. If you have a high intimidate, you can skip the whole "proving you are dangerous" thing.

You don't need a diplomacy check to get somebody to do something they would do anyway.
You don't need a bluff check to prove something that's obviously fact.
So why should you need an intimidate check when you can obviously kill the person you are threatening?

Akal Saris
2009-09-22, 08:58 PM
Well, I think you'd be rolling an Intimidate check after beating up your DM, with heavy, heavy circumstance bonuses to compensate for the fact that you're untrained in Intimidate and have a negative charisma modifier =P

Yukitsu
2009-09-22, 09:39 PM
Not everybody is suggesting you just RP everything, though. What's been suggested is that certain things basically give you a circumstance modifier to intimidate or other social skills bigger than it's possible to beat. Basically, even if you have low charisma, if you just ripped the barkeepers head off and used it to club the guardsmen to death, the mayor is damn sure going to be ready to give in to your demands whether or not you have high intimidate. If you have a high intimidate, you can skip the whole "proving you are dangerous" thing.

You don't need a diplomacy check to get somebody to do something they would do anyway.
You don't need a bluff check to prove something that's obviously fact.
So why should you need an intimidate check when you can obviously kill the person you are threatening?

Many people are suggesting that RP can replace stats however, in that one can be RPed as intelligent, charming and witty when they have mental stats of 6,6,6. Equivalently, I should be allowed to play a melee bruiser with cat like reflexes and supernatural toughness with physical stats of 6,6,6, simply because I can beat the crap out of the rest of my gaming group.

Akal Saris
2009-09-22, 09:59 PM
The character doesn't have to be especially charming, intelligent, or witty, but I'd say he could certainly have a dump stat without it being a defining aspect of his character. My wizard, for example, has a low wisdom stat, but that doesn't mean he has to immediately rush into every situation or automatically accept everything as the truth. I've played a charming fighter whose Charisma was 8, where he was so crazy and foolhardy that nobody sane would consider him a suitable leader - but he was still quite outgoing and friendly.

Likewise, I think a character should be able to achieve social goals without high ranks in social skills, so long as the argument is convincing (and preferably in-character).

In 2E, for example, there were no social skills other than the Charisma stat, so you could feasibly have a fighter that was the party leader as long as he RP'd one well. But in 3.5, the rules don't really support that very well (though PF is better in this regard since cross-class skills are easier to raise, and 4E is slightly better since the skill bonuses for being trained aren't as critical).

Lycar
2009-09-24, 03:45 PM
Lycar's POV is almost opposite of my own: how ridiculous is it that in a role-playing game, only rogues and bards are supposed to be allowed to talk to the NPCs? They have in-game powers besides being the party face, after all. My new wizard has a 20 Int, but it doesn't mean he won't let anyone else do any thinking in the game - it just means that when it comes to making skill checks, he's going to roll very well on the knowledges. Like alignment, stats should be a guide, not a straitjacket.

Uhm but that is not the opposite of my stance. Sure, stats are not hard-and-fast rules how to play a character, but if someone who dumped CHA or INT insists on PRing a smart and suave character, he is stepping on the toes of those who actually invested in those stats to justify their RPing a smart character.

It is just like trying trying to get something for nothing. And that doesn't sit well with the people who actually paid the price of admission.



Here's a secret: the system rewards players highly for dumping certain stats (especially Pathfinder's PB, even moreso than 3.5), and punishes them inordinately for choosing poor mechanical choices as a "roleplayer." If you force yourself to conform to the system's strict definition of character traits, then you will also be confined to a very narrow set of archetypes that you can play effectively - or you can choose to play ineffective characters and expand your archetypes. But if you just roleplay the character that you want to be without stressing too much over your stats, then you can expand your archetypes and play effective characters.

But that is a problem with the rules, the system. There are basically two ways to handle this:

Recognize that the system is crap, ignore stats (social and otherwise) altogether for the RP and just play your PC however you like him. This works well if everybody at the table agrees to it.

The other way is to acknowledge that a rounded character comes at the price of efficiency. Again, no problem if all players agree to this point of view and create characters at roughly the same power level. The only difference is that this party can not kill 20+ goblins in one sitting but only 15 or maybe 10.

But since the GM is supposed to challenge the party, not outright kill it, he will just have to adjust the encounters to what the party actually can handle. Because that is his friggin' job to begin with.

(Coming back to the part how ridiculous it is only bards/rogues are allowed to be good at talking: It is an artifact of the system, easy enought o deal with: Do away with class skills, bump up skill points all around (around +2 to every class allows people to afford flavour skills) and call it a day.

Now everybody can be a bold-faced liar or silver-tongued diplomat. Still, only the people who are really interested in being one will be.

But that still doesn't change the fact that someone who tries to pass off his character as having stats/abilities/powers he did not actually pay for is being a grade A hole to those who did.)

Lycar