Stormwind fallacy [Archive] - Page 2 - Giant in the Playground Forums

misterk

2010-02-12, 05:25 AM

"The more you think mechanically the less you roleplay"
Care to provide a shread of objective evidence to back this up.

As for the notion of having to keep up with optimisers. I'm reminded of a 2nd Ed Warhammer fantasy roleplay game. 1 player started as a noble, and in the starting equipment for the Noble was a foil. So he used a foil in combat, and endlessy bitched about how crap the weapon was (which it was). But he was what u would call a "Roleplayer" so he continued using this crap weapon and been unhappy because he contributed so little in fights.

Amd yes, I also know a "optimiser" who'll tell u that everyone has to have the most powerful build possible for their concept or the letting the party down, while often getting upset if his chracter is the most powerful (in his mind).

Both types tend to be similiar in that while they talk a good talk there's a awful lot of hypocrisy in there.

As for the silly argument that a earlier poster was putting out about time spent on crunch detracts from fluff and visa versa. Excuse me, some of us do other things in our life beside work on our characters. There is an approx max time I will spend on mucking around with crunch, and an approx max time I'll spend contemplating fluff. As a general rule I hit those, at which point I'm not wasting more time on the character.

I am. Stupid modern day emo pseudo-ethics. Neither soldiers in general, nor snipers and special forces units specifically, are evil by default.:smallmad:

Stephen E

PS. Lycar: There have been a number of middle-ground people here. Unfortunately as extremists are inclined to do, they get labeled as the opposite extreme. "If you aren't with us, you're against us":smalltongue:

I am not taking an extremist viewpoint, at least I hope not. I have no issue with any way someone wants to have fun with a particular game, and would not claim one method is superior or not, I am merely trying to prove a rhetorical point. There is such a thing as taking a devils advocate approach online, because agreeing to all get along is so dull, don't you think?

Anyhow, as to the mechanical/roleplaying thing. I have attempted to express what I am trying to say several times in this thread, and shall try one more time.

If you are creating or leveling a character, and have choices to make, I would argue that to perfectly roleplay (if this is a goal one should aspire to), all your choices should be informed by character. At no point should you really be thinking about optimising, but this will probably be a happy accident of your character being effective- most beings are effective at one task, usually the task they have chosen as a profession- its an extremely unusual character who is actively bad at the task they have set themselves.

If you take the approach of saying "my character is x race, and y class, thanks to z background they will not take certain skills and feats, and have to take those. Under those constraints, how can I make this character as effective as possible". Well then I would argue that that last point divorces you from character. Every single choice should ideally be informed by who that character is, and if, even with constraints, you start optimising, you have slipped from a platonic ideal of roleplaying.

Now. Obviously no-one succeeds in this goal, nor perhaps should they. But what I argue here is that the notion that optimisation and roleplaying are non-conflicting isn't true. You can, if you try hard enough, roleplay practically every character decision you need to take, including the creation process. This may lead to optimisation of sorts, but should not be one's focus if one is entirely focused on character.

Once again, I do not believe such a method of play to be necessary or indeed practical. I do not believe that if one optimises a character one cannot then roleplay them, only that a certain amount of roleplaying opportunity has been lost along the way.

On a final, random tangent, the player who chose to make the noble use the foil sounds... more than a little foolish. The foil was a weapon designed for a very specific purpose, that of dueling, and few people would use it in a straight up fight, even a noble, especially one who also starts with a hand weapon!

Amphetryon

2010-02-12, 07:44 AM

The usual rebuttal, ala Stormwind, is that by making it 'either/or', you're creating a False Dichotomy (http://info-pollution.com/false.htm). Any choices that I make about equipment, skills, race, class, or feats that are based on 'character' are also choices that directly impact 'power'.

If I choose to have my fighter use a club instead of a spear, that specifically impacts his abilities as a fighter, while simultaneously providing information about him as a person. If I choose to have him take "Skill Focus (Conceptual Underwater Basket-weaving)," I've made a specific choice which impacts his feat and skill selections. Both choices can be 'power gamed' to a degree, incidentally; Tsuyoshikentsu optimized basket-weaving long ago over at WotC.

pres_man

2010-02-12, 08:05 AM

If you take the approach of saying "my character is x race, and y class, thanks to z background they will not take certain skills and feats, and have to take those. Under those constraints, how can I make this character as effective as possible". Well then I would argue that that last point divorces you from character. Every single choice should ideally be informed by who that character is, and if, even with constraints, you start optimising, you have slipped from a platonic ideal of roleplaying.

What if there are two choices, both equally demonstrate the character ideal, but one is a mechanically superior choice, i.e. both are equal from a fluff/roleplaying standpoint but one is mechanically superior. Would choosing the mechanically superior choice, because it is mechanically superior, mean at that point you are "divorcing" from the character?

misterk

2010-02-12, 09:55 AM

What if there are two choices, both equally demonstrate the character ideal, but one is a mechanically superior choice, i.e. both are equal from a fluff/roleplaying standpoint but one is mechanically superior. Would choosing the mechanically superior choice, because it is mechanically superior, mean at that point you are "divorcing" from the character?

I'd be surprised if that was the case. I really am talking about the absurdly perfect roleplayer who can define every detail of their character because they know them that well. Every single choice is impactful of who that character is, so should mean something.

Once again, this is a ridiculous person who does not exist, but I do think optimisation and roleplaying are kind of at odds to each other, if one is doing the former conciously. I'd probably argue that thinking "my character should use his grandfathers long sword, enchanted to destroy the undead that he hates.. and hey that'd be pretty useful." is fine, but "Well my character hates undead, I'll take a long sword enchanted to kill them, thats pretty op, and say its my grandfathers." is not. Fine here meaning roleplaying or not roleplaying, not good or not good.

Jayabalard

2010-02-12, 10:09 AM

What if there are two choices, both equally demonstrate the character ideal, but one is a mechanically superior choice, I'm not convinced that this is actually possible.

Really, I find it much more likely that there are 2 (or more) choices, each of which portray the character idea to various degrees, each with their own pros and cons, and none of which work "equally well". Sometimes people are going to sacrifice the mechanical power to pick the option that fits better, and sometimes they're going to sacrifice the characterization to pick the mechanically powerful option.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-12, 10:24 AM

The usual rebuttal, ala Stormwind, is that by making it 'either/or', you're creating a False Dichotomy (http://info-pollution.com/false.htm). Any choices that a make about equipment, skills, race, class, or feats that are based on 'character' are also choices that directly impact 'power'.

If I choose to have my fighter use a club instead of a spear, that specifically impacts his abilities as a fighter, while simultaneously providing information about him as a person. If I choose to have him take "Skill Focus (Conceptual Underwater Basket-weaving)," I've made a specific choice which impacts his feat and skill selections. Both choices can be 'power gamed' to a degree, incidentally; Tsuyoshikentsu optimized basket-weaving long ago over at WotC.

War Weaver requires skill focus basket weaving.

pres_man

2010-02-12, 12:45 PM

potatocubed

2010-02-12, 01:35 PM

I believe there are probably similar choices that come up regularly.

There are plenty. When choosing feats for a 4e wizard, for example, Enlarge Spell is pretty much mechanically superior to everything else, and if your concept is already 'wizard' it costs you nothing in terms of RP to take Enlarge Spell.

Compare and contrast with Leather Armour Proficiency, which is also an excellent mechanical choice for 4e wizards, but is only a good RP choice if your concept includes armoured casting (and a lot of wizard concepts don't).

Jayabalard

2010-02-12, 01:55 PM

Now at sixth level, improved toughness is the superior choice (giving 6 extra hps, versus 3 hps for toughness). Bob just leveled to 6th level, and is picking a feat; Alice the sameclass is already level 6, and has improved toughness; Bob thinks that it makes sense (based on the experiences/bacstory of the two characters) that Alice should still be a little tougher than Bob. Toughness is therefore a less mechanically powerful option, but the best choice for characterization.

Now, I agree: this is a very narrow case because those 2 feats are extremely similar; but the more detail you put into the characterization, the more likely you're going to run into see a difference even when the items are very close. And really, there aren't a huge percentage of cases where 2 choices are as close to these with one being clearly mechanically better.

If you are talking about broad generalities, then sure, as far as you are concerned they are equal; but as you get down to more and more fine detail, differences show up, and you really are having to make a sacrifice of one for the other.

I kind of assume that this is part of why you see "roleplayers" have such a negative attitude toward "rollplayers" and vice versa ... the former see the differences (even minute ones) in characterization as being more important, while the latter sees the differences in mechanics (even minute ones) as being more important.

I believe there are probably similar choices that come up regularly.Similar is not the same as "equal". I thought that bolding that particular word in your text was enough to be clear about that but I guess that's not the case.

What you really mean is probably "close enough to equal not to matter" ... but for some people it still really does matter. That's really kind of at the heart of the issue (at least in my opinion)

pres_man

2010-02-12, 02:16 PM

Similar is not the same as "equal". I thought that bolding that particular word in your text was enough to be clear about that but I guess that's not the case.

Durr, me stupid, can you explain better, cus me too dumb to understand you. You big bright smart guy, who knows everything. Sorry me dumb person try to axe you things. Me stupid guy so sorry.

horseboy

2010-02-12, 04:04 PM

If I read Horseboy correctly, he does not complain about the fact that training with a musical instrument will cut into his fighter's sword-training time, but rather that D&D forces almost binary choices in that matter.

Pretty much. If we graph a character and have character "growth" as the horizontal line and character "power" on the vertical, in an actual RPG a player should be able to spend as much resources along the y as the x (Giving, gasp, a circle! You know, a well rounded character) and still be able to play on "normal" difficulty setting. D&D doesn't work that way since it's actually a war game in which many choose to roleplay. The more you spend on "y" the more you've got to turn down the difficulty in the system to compensate for your lack of "x".

Other than this slight difference I agree with Stormwind. If I want to play a sociologist who's one of the greatest minds in the galaxy (cause authority figures don't come to dirt farmers to fix their problems, they go to experts in their field, unless I guess the problem is dirt farming) then mechanically they need to be one of the greatest minds in the galaxy.

Other than that, I generally see the whole "Roleplay vs Rollplay" really just to be a "left brain vs right brain" thing.

Tyndmyr

2010-02-12, 04:07 PM

Say someone decide that toughness and improved toughness both fit their character concept for their sixth level character. They want the character to be able to take a bit of damage above the norm. Now at sixth level, improved toughness is the superior choice (giving 6 extra hps, versus 3 hps for toughness). Now in what fashion is toughness a more roleplaying choice over improved toughness? I would fail to see how, so I don't think in that case there is any kind of conflict between roleplaying and optimization.

I believe there are probably similar choices that come up regularly.

This is an excellent example of a mechanical choice with no real rp difference. One choice is simply superior mechanicaly, and I have difficulty seeing any fluff difference between the two.

I would be curious to see Jaya's response to this point, instead of the grammatical/personal sniping now going on.

Edit: Edit ninjaed, apparently. Apparently the claim is that the mechanical difference IS the rp difference in this case. As if the characters know what their hp totals are, or that IC toughness is determined merely from comparing hp totals.

pres_man

2010-02-12, 04:34 PM

Edit: Edit ninjaed, apparently. Apparently the claim is that the mechanical difference IS the rp difference in this case. As if the characters know what their hp totals are, or that IC toughness is determined merely from comparing hp totals.

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of "inferior choices are better choices from a roleplaying standpoint always" types of thinking. I guess if commoner poop-scoopers are the highest form of roleplaying character, it makes sense, but I'm not seeing that.

Tyndmyr

2010-02-12, 04:39 PM

Yeah, I'm seeing a lot of "inferior choices are better choices from a roleplaying standpoint always" types of thinking. I guess if commoner poop-scoopers are the highest form of roleplaying character, it makes sense, but I'm not seeing that.

Hell, I think pun-pun is an awesome roleplaying possibility. He just doesn't work in a party for obvious mechanical reasons. However, the scheming kobold who actually gained obscene power...why did he do it? And what does he do next? From an RP standpoint, you could have a fascinating solo exploration of pun pun as a character, if you wished. He's just not a useful, playable character mechanically.

I mean...if you want a character to be weak, then...there is no conflict between optimization and roleplay, because you do not WANT to optimize him to be strong. If you can't decide if you want him to be weak or strong, you need to make up your mind.

Stephen_E

2010-02-12, 05:35 PM

potatocubed

2010-02-12, 05:51 PM

I guess if commoner poop-scoopers are the highest form of roleplaying character, it makes sense, but I'm not seeing that.

In Talislanta, Marukani dung-collectors make for an awesome - if odiferous - party.

Jayabalard

2010-02-12, 06:09 PM

Durr, me stupid, can you explain better, cus me too dumb to understand you. You big bright smart guy, who knows everything. Sorry me dumb person try to axe you things. Me stupid guy so sorry.oh, ok; hopefully this helps.
similar
adj
1. showing resemblance in qualities, characteristics, or appearance; alike but not identical
2. (Mathematics) Geometry (of two or more figures) having corresponding angles equal and all corresponding sides in the same ratio Compare congruent [2]
3. (Mathematics) Maths (of two classes) equinumerous

equal
adj.
1. Having the same quantity, measure, or value as another.
2. Mathematics Being the same or identical to in value.

pres_man

2010-02-12, 06:11 PM

{Scrubbed}

Jayabalard

2010-02-12, 06:25 PM

If these PCs are so well roleplayed can you explain why they are deliberately learning inferior skill and feats.For the same reason that people are overweight. Or play WoW instead of bettering themselves in some way. Or go out drinking instead of working out. Or why my office mate goes is involed in the Barbershop Harmony Society instead of the of the Association of Computing Machinists or IEEE.

Real People generally don't pick optimal choices; they pick what makes sense at the time, or even make bad choices.

So in the case of Improved Toughness and Toughness you are saying the adventurer will knowingly choose to take the weaker choice when he knows are better choice exists?He might, since the choice isn't really that simple in character; they don't just go pick up a pack of improved toughness at the store. That feat represents a certain set of training taken on by that character, and it's quite reasonable that Bob may have not been willing to work as hard as Alice...

So, more correctly, the player chooses the weaker choice to represent the actual choices that the character has made.

Hardened adventurer has choice between grandads +2 sword, or +5 undead killing sword. Adventurer is going to take the +5 because it's the mechanically superior choice.Nah, I'm sure that often the case, but there are loads of reasons why someone might pick the weaker magical sword over the stronger magical sword. People make some really poor choices for nostalgic reasons.

Jayabalard

2010-02-12, 06:28 PM

See, me dumb, you smart to know this wrong.You did ask me to explain better.

#2 is not a really good one; it's the definition of the word as a synonym for impartial, which doesn't fit the context for what you were talking about at all.

As for #4, that looks a fair bit like
What you really mean is probably "close enough to equal not to matter" which is what I said I thought you meant.

But like I said: for some people it still really does matter. Just because you think that it's close enough not to matter doesn't mean that everyone thinks it's close enough not to matter.

I mean...if you want a character to be weak, then...there is no conflict between optimization and roleplay, because you do not WANT to optimize him to be strong.It depends on exactly what is meant by conflict; I've been using it to mean "focusing on one results in a reduction of the other" which is pretty much the standard sort of usage when you're talking about Roleplay vs Rollplay having an effect on one another.

if focusing on the characterization means that the character needs to be have the weaker in order to be consistent with his choices, then choosing to stick to that particular characterization is resulting in a lessening of optimization
If you can't decide if you want him to be weak or strong, you need to make up your mind.Not really, you can just decide that you want him to remain "realistic" and whether he winds up strong or weak as a result doesn't really matter.

pres_man

2010-02-12, 06:38 PM

So the typical fantasy hero is equivalent similar to Joe Sixpack?

Yup, Conan is about as fantasical as Mr. Smith who uses a riding mower to mow is 20 square feet of yard while drinking his beer.

Jayabalard

2010-02-12, 07:21 PM

So the typical fantasy hero is equivalent similar to Joe Sixpack?I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here.

I don't really understand what "typical fantasy hero" has to do with the discussion. We're not just talking about people who are playing fantasy games or even people who are playing heroic games. Nor are we talking about typical (even if you can get people to agree on what that means) in any sense of the word: we're talking about all cases.

If you want to limit yourself to only playing a typical character, that's your prerogative, and there's nothing wrong with that, but don't expect everyone who plays RPGs to limit themselves in that fashion.

pres_man

2010-02-13, 12:24 AM

I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here.

I don't really understand what "typical fantasy hero" has to do with the discussion. We're not just talking about people who are playing fantasy games or even people who are playing heroic games. Nor are we talking about typical (even if you can get people to agree on what that means) in any sense of the word: we're talking about all cases.

If you want to limit yourself to only playing a typical character, that's your prerogative, and there's nothing wrong with that, but don't expect everyone who plays RPGs to limit themselves in that fashion.

You're right, I'm sure some people enjoy playing Sims the RPG.

Lycar

2010-02-13, 06:24 AM

I will point something out here.
If these PCs are so well roleplayed can you explain why they are deliberately learning inferior skill and feats.
Remember feats ect are just things the player chooses, they are alos things the PC are choosing to learn.
To come back to this point: The character does not know about hit points, BAB, feats and skill points. Do not confuse the arbitrary mechanics of a game with real life concepts, even if they are meant to model them.

So in the case of Improved Toughness and Toughness you are saying the adventurer will knowingly choose to take the weaker choice when he knows are better choice exists?
That is just the point: The adventurer 'does not knowingly chose' anything. The player does. The character doesn't know squat about 'choices'.

In the above example, the players of the two fighter types Bob and Alice decide to pick up a feat that increases HP, to make them a bit tougher.

For some reason, Bob has always been a bit less tough then Alice. And if Bob's player now decides to take the mechanical inferior feat, he makes a conscious choice to maintain that disparity between the characters. Which is a roleplaying decision.

As has been mentioned, maybe Bob just doesn't train quite as hard as Alice. Maybe women just are tougher (they at least are more resistant to pain in the real world!). Whatever the ingame rationalisation, the players made a choice to 'optimize' their character concept. In this case, Bob always being a bit less tough then Alice.

If your PC has single didgit wisdom I guess you can explain it, but otherwise an awful lot of the claims that option "x" is a better "roleplay" option despite been weaker mechanically is BS.
Again, the 'character' doesn't get a say in the matter. The player makes the choice. The 'character' may struggle as hard as the next tomb-evacuator to get tougher, he just doesn't get as much out of his efforts. Because his 'guardian angle' has other plans.

Hardened adventurer has choice between grandads +2 sword, or +5 undead killing sword. Adventurer is going to take the +5 because it's the mechanically superior choice.
Again, don't mix up IC and OOC knowledge. The character doesn't know diddly squat about +X and YYY Bane. Only if he uses the other sword in enough fights to learn that, yes, it seems to make making enemies fall down easier, will he even realize that he has a more powerful weapon in his hands.

He may still decide to 'keep it in reserve for tough fights' and prefer to leave day-to-day enemy killing to his old family heirloom. Because he feels he would disgrace his forebeares if he didn't. Sentimentalism ahoi!

And do you really tell me that anyone but the most hardened of mercs would simply throw away a family icon for a bit of gold the very moment a slightly better thing comes along? Really? Even if he decides that his survival is better served with the new toy, he should at least stick to the family sword as a backup. Or maybe pass it on inside the family.

Of course, that too is such a suboptimal choice, taking a hit on your WBL by giving loot away to dirty NPCs... :smallamused:

How the hell are all these adventurers that take dumb choices susposed to have survived. The simple truth is that adventurers are more likely to be optimisers than players are.
Again: The characters don't get to make the decisions...

Indeed you could argue that many so called "roleplayers" aren't because they don't optimise their PC which is unrealistic for an adventurer.:smallwink:

Stephen E
Remember: They do optimize. Just for character concept instead of raw mechanical power.

Sure, nothing wrong with playing a powerful character. But if you insist to always pick the same 'cookie cutter' set of feats and abilitites, you will run out of possible personalities rather fast. For some people, that gets old pretty fast too.

Sometimes, less is more... less mechanical optimization means more opportunities to be different. And, when it comes down to it, isn't that what roleplaying is about?

You're right, I'm sure some people enjoy playing Sims the RPG.
... if the sales figures of the The Sims games are any indication... 'some' isn't even getting close... :smallamused:

Lycar

Jayabalard

2010-02-13, 10:29 AM

That is just the point: The adventurer 'does not knowingly chose' anything. The player does. The character doesn't know squat about 'choices'.

Again, don't mix up IC and OOC knowledge. The character doesn't know diddly squat about +X and YYY Bane.Just to be clear: the character does make choices, they just aren't "pick Feat X or Feat Y" ... most of the time, a feat choice represents more than a single choice on the part of the character.

As for magic items: depending on the particular game, you may know if a weapon is more magic than another, or you may not; it's very game system, and group specific. But even if you know, there are loads of reasons why someone might not use the more powerful weapon.

You're right, I'm sure some people enjoy playing Sims the RPG.Correct; some people also like playing sterotypical RPG fantasy. And I feel that it's pretty likely that the vast majority fit somewhere in between.

You seem to be implying that if someone doesn't want to play some sort of stereotypical larger than life hero then you're doing it wrong, and that's just not the case. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wanting to play like that, and I'll play games like that myself from time to time, but I personally find that very very limiting to only play like that.

I think this is really part of what lies at the core of the extremist "roleplayer" vs "rollplayer" arguments: both sides have trouble believing that anyone would actually want to play like that.

pres_man

2010-02-13, 12:25 PM

You seem to be implying that if someone doesn't want to play some sort of stereotypical larger than life hero then you're doing it wrong, and that's just not the case. I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with wanting to play like that, and I'll play games like that myself from time to time, but I personally find that very very limiting to only play like that.

Am I implying that an adventurer (which is what Stephen E was talking about) should be a step above the average Joe Shmoe commoner in a setting, yes, I am implying that. Adventuring is a dangerous business and being on par with your typical commoner is likely to get you and your allies killed. Adventurers are not like typical people and making arguments that they are is a bit silly. They are the elite of a campaign setting, something more akin to special forces than typical folks.

That doesn't mean they all have to be batmen or captain americas, but it does mean that if they have all suboptimal abilities means they will likely not be adventurers. Which is fine, if you want to just play games where you don't adventure, but if your characters do adventure, then they need to at the very least be able to do their job. Complaining that everything is too hard, because they just don't have the abilities necessary to actual do the job, is foolish. A party is unlikely to carry around a person who just can't perform, that is likely to get that person killed as well as the party.

EDIT: Also, I would hope that if a person knew they didn't have capabilities that they wouldn't volunteer to go on adventures in the first place. That they would be willing to admit that they were incapable before they endangered the lives of others as well as their own life. To force a dead weight upon a group of adventures is both selfish and dangerous.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-13, 12:39 PM

Am I implying that an adventurer (which is what Stephen E was talking about) should be a step above the average Joe Shmoe commoner in a setting, yes, I am implying that. Adventuring is a dangerous business and being on par with your typical commoner is likely to get you and your allies killed. Adventurers are not like typical people and making arguments that they are is a bit silly. They are the elite of a campaign setting, something more akin to special forces than typical folks.

That doesn't mean they all have to be batmen or captain americas, but it does mean that if they have all suboptimal abilities means they will likely not be adventurers. Which is fine, if you want to just play games where you don't adventure, but if your characters do adventure, then they need to at the very least be able to do their job. Complaining that everything is too hard, because they just don't have the abilities necessary to actual do the job, is foolish. A party is unlikely to carry around a person who just can't perform, that is likely to get that person killed as well as the party.

So they could be like Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller in Mystery Men)? Pretty much average but eventually learn a level of Barb?

pres_man

2010-02-13, 12:43 PM

So they could be like Mr. Furious (Ben Stiller in Mystery Men)? Pretty much average but eventually learn a level of Barb?

Sure. Or they find their "inner" barb level. There is nothing wrong with playing a less then heroic character, who has their "true" abilities shine just when they are most needed.

horseboy

2010-02-13, 07:06 PM

Again, don't mix up IC and OOC knowledge. The character doesn't know diddly squat about +X and YYY Bane. Only if he uses the other sword in enough fights to learn that, yes, it seems to make making enemies fall down easier, will he even realize that he has a more powerful weapon in his hands.

He may still decide to 'keep it in reserve for tough fights' and prefer to leave day-to-day enemy killing to his old family heirloom. Because he feels he would disgrace his forebeares if he didn't. Sentimentalism ahoi!There's sentimentalism and then there's silly. I'm very sentimental. I have my grandfather's shotgun. I keep it maintained to firing status just in case society collapses and I've got to go hunt vermin for food or I ever have a kid myself. They're going to need a training weapon. But do I hunt with it? No. It's a single shot .410. I have much better weapons for hunting.
Unless my character has sworn to kill X with pa's weapon, the moment I find something better I'm going to enshrine it over the mantle, rather than risking it being lost, stolen, broken, eaten by a rust monster... Choosing to keep using it despite a much better solution being available doesn't make one a better roleplayer automatically. Choosing to keep it because it will be the instrument of vengeance will.

Of course, that too is such a suboptimal choice, taking a hit on your WBL by giving loot away to dirty NPCs... :smallamused:

Yet another reason to dislike WBL.
Correct; some people also like playing stereotypical RPG fantasy. And I feel that it's pretty likely that the vast majority fit somewhere in between. Well, the peasant hero is a common stereotype, bringing both extremes together.
:smallamused:
Am I implying that an adventurer (which is what Stephen E was talking about) should be a step above the average Joe Shmoe commoner in a setting, yes, I am implying that. Adventuring is a dangerous business and being on par with your typical commoner is likely to get you and your allies killed. Adventurers are not like typical people and making arguments that they are is a bit silly. They are the elite of a campaign setting, something more akin to special forces than typical folks.

That doesn't mean they all have to be batmen or captain americas, but it does mean that if they have all suboptimal abilities means they will likely not be adventurers. Which is fine, if you want to just play games where you don't adventure, but if your characters do adventure, then they need to at the very least be able to do their job. Complaining that everything is too hard, because they just don't have the abilities necessary to actual do the job, is foolish. A party is unlikely to carry around a person who just can't perform, that is likely to get that person killed as well as the party. There's Xander. Xander's struggle to find relevance in the party, especially after the shark jumping in the later seasons shows the problems with "low power" characters in a "high power" story. Ultimately, though if the player CHOOSES (as opposed to the rules tricking you) to play Xander and the group agrees to allow the character, there's really nothing wrong with it. It's a conscious decision of consenting individuals.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-13, 07:20 PM

:smallamused: There's Xander. Xander's struggle to find relevance in the party, especially after the shark jumping in the later seasons shows the problems with "low power" characters in a "high power" story. Ultimately, though if the player CHOOSES (as opposed to the rules tricking you) to play Xander and the group agrees to allow the character, there's really nothing wrong with it. It's a conscious decision of consenting individuals.

Wait, in the beginning series Xander took on 5 ghouls (intelligent zombies) single handedly when they planned to bomb the school.

That was pretty badass.

It is just Xander is a Fighter. After a certain level: you can't keep up and stay non-magical. They gave Xander training in every miltary weapon as a perk on that Halloween episode to keep up with the witch and the Buffy.

Then Buffy's new BF was a miltary dude so Xander wasn't badass in comparison. Witch got higher magic. Buffy got stronger. They got a demon in the party (with less powers).

Really, Buffy is a D&D campaign. You got to be magical (whether weaponry or innate) to keep up with supernatural threats.

horseboy

2010-02-13, 07:30 PM

Wait, in the beginning series Xander took on 5 ghouls (intelligent zombies) single handedly when they planned to bomb the school.

That was pretty badass.

It is just Xander is a Fighter. After a certain level: you can't keep up and stay non-magical. They gave Xander training in every miltary weapon as a perk on that Halloween episode to keep up with the witch and the Buffy.

Then Buffy's new BF was a miltary dude so Xander wasn't badass in comparison. Witch got higher magic. Buffy got stronger. They got a demon in the party (with less powers).

Really, Buffy is a D&D campaign. You got to be magical (whether weaponry or innate) to keep up with supernatural threats.
Pretty much, though Xander's military training disappeared before Riley showed up, so from that point on all he had was his carpentry skills. He never really "tried" to become something other than a carpenter. He could have gone sniper, or trap builder, but instead chose to whine out being relegated to "heart".

Jayabalard

2010-02-14, 01:23 AM

Am I implying that an adventurer (which is what Stephen E was talking about) should be a step above the average Joe Shmoe commoner in a setting, yes, I am implying that.Being a step above Joe Shmoe doesn't require optimization; whether you take toughness, or improved toughness you're going to be that, because Joe Shmoe doesn't have either of those. There's a huge range of what sort of characters people play, everything from non-antripomorphic animals who have trouble counting above 3 and have to watch out for dangers like dogs, to regular joe shmoe humans, to larger than life heroes, to earth shattering cosmic entities. And everywhere in between. Any of those can be an "adventurer"

Adventurers are not like typical people and making arguments that they are is a bit silly. They are the elite of a campaign setting, something more akin to special forces than typical folks. The assumption that some arbitrary person plays "Elite adventurers" is extremely game system and campaign dependent; please do not assume that everyone plays the same type of game that you do.

Complaining that everything is too hard, because they just don't have the abilities necessary to actual do the job, is foolish. I don't think that anyone has suggested that this is reasonable behavior.

A party is unlikely to carry around a person who just can't perform, that is likely to get that person killed as well as the party.This does not seem to actually be the case; there have been several threads recently (the DMPC threads spring to mind) where people have talked about having party NPC's that have to be be basically carried and protected throughout the game; these people seem to be generally playing the sort of larger than life heroes that you are assuming are universal. So it seems that parties aren't really unlikely to carry around someone who is weak, if they have enough other reasons to do so. I seem to recall some similar comments regarding PCs in some of the Monk threads.

My own experiences: I've played in several games where we protected certain PC's because they were not able to carry their own weight. A certain rifts campaign comes to mind, where there were people in powered armor (including a Glitter Boy) in the same party with a Rogue Scholar and Wilderness Scouts.

Also, I would hope that if a person knew they didn't have capabilities that they wouldn't volunteer to go on adventures in the first place.People don't necessarily volunteer to be adventurers; for example, there are the "unlikely heroes" who have been thrust into danger by fate, not by choice. They're reeling from one challenge to the next, surviving or not as best they can.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 03:07 AM

The assumption that some arbitrary person plays "Elite adventurers" is extremely game system and campaign dependent; please do not assume that everyone plays the same type of game that you do. I don't think that anyone has suggested that this is reasonable behavior.

This does not seem to actually be the case; there have been several threads recently (the DMPC threads spring to mind) where people have talked about having party NPC's that have to be be basically carried and protected throughout the game; these people seem to be generally playing the sort of larger than life heroes that you are assuming are universal. So it seems that parties aren't really unlikely to carry around someone who is weak, if they have enough other reasons to do so. I seem to recall some similar comments regarding PCs in some of the Monk threads.

What are you talking about? Isn't it pretty much a universal unwritten rule of gaming that if you screw up and your character is maimed or gains permanent negative levels (or if you screw up by taking a feat trap like weapon focus and get a better weapon that doesn't use the feat) that you immediately scrap that character and reroll? Come on! The raid group adventuring party isn't going to put up with that crap. Even in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the "players" were talking about killing off Xander because he sucked.

People don't necessarily volunteer to be adventurers; for example, there are the "unlikely heroes" who have been thrust into danger by fate, not by choice. They're reeling from one challenge to the next, surviving or not as best they can.

Pfft. Why would you want to play that kind of character? Why play Samwise Gamgee when you could play Aragorn instead? You're just nerfing yourself for no reason!

pres_man

2010-02-14, 09:44 AM

Being a step above Joe Shmoe doesn't require optimization; whether you take toughness, or improved toughness you're going to be that, because Joe Shmoe doesn't have either of those. There's a huge range of what sort of characters people play, everything from non-antripomorphic animals who have trouble counting above 3 and have to watch out for dangers like dogs, to regular joe shmoe humans, to larger than life heroes, to earth shattering cosmic entities. And everywhere in between. Any of those can be an "adventurer"

The assumption that some arbitrary person plays "Elite adventurers" is extremely game system and campaign dependent; please do not assume that everyone plays the same type of game that you do.

Hey, like I said, if you prefer to play Sims the RPG, more power to you. I wouldn't exactly call that "adventuring", but I guess you feel it is.

I don't think that anyone has suggested that this is reasonable behavior.

Sure they have, there are those people that complained that when someone in the party is actually playing a heroic character (optimized), it means that their character can no longer do their job (challenges get too tough). If your character can't actually adventure, retire it and play it in your Sims RPG game.

This does not seem to actually be the case; there have been several threads recently (the DMPC threads spring to mind) where people have talked about having party NPC's that have to be be basically carried and protected throughout the game; these people seem to be generally playing the sort of larger than life heroes that you are assuming are universal. So it seems that parties aren't really unlikely to carry around someone who is weak, if they have enough other reasons to do so. I seem to recall some similar comments regarding PCs in some of the Monk threads.

So to be able to play Joe Shmoe you need to be the load and depend on others to be the heroic characters (optimized), so why is optimizing bad again?

People don't necessarily volunteer to be adventurers; for example, there are the "unlikely heroes" who have been thrust into danger by fate, not by choice. They're reeling from one challenge to the next, surviving or not as best they can.

Well, most people who are put in those situations in literary works, end up developing into being able to handle it. They don't just suck the entire time. Hell, Bilbo was a wuss at the beginning, but he become the one that did the tough jobs in the end. So now getting tougher (more optimized) as time goes on, assuming one is being an adventurer and facing danger versus deciding which plants to grow, is actual good roleplaying. Maintaining the load part is actually not.

Also, don't confuse characters with players. While a character may not "volunteer" a player certainly has. That player then has a responsibility to develop the character in response to the difficulties the character has faced. Not to ignore those difficulties and to not make the character tougher.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-14, 09:47 AM

What are you talking about? Isn't it pretty much a universal unwritten rule of gaming that if you screw up and your character is maimed or gains permanent negative levels (or if you screw up by taking a feat trap like weapon focus and get a better weapon that doesn't use the feat) that you immediately scrap that character and reroll? Come on! The raid group adventuring party isn't going to put up with that crap. Even in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the "players" were talking about killing off Xander because he sucked.

No, they just suggested he not go raid with them anymore. Though he got that demon gf which changed things (Anyanka).

pres_man

2010-02-14, 10:02 AM

No, they just suggested he not go raid with them anymore. Though he got that demon gf which changed things (Anyanka).

There you go, when your unoptimized character can no longer hang with the group of heroic adventurers, then do the responsible thing. Retire it to do research with the watcher.

Jayabalard

2010-02-14, 10:08 AM

Isn't it pretty much a universal unwritten rule of gaming that if you screw up and your character is maimed or gains permanent negative levels (or if you screw up by taking a feat trap like weapon focus and get a better weapon that doesn't use the feat) that you immediately scrap that character and reroll? No. I would say this is only the case for a specific type of gamer.

Pfft. Why would you want to play that kind of character? Why play Samwise Gamgee when you could play Aragorn instead? Because they can both be equally fun to play.

Sure they have, there are those people that complained that when someone in the party is actually playing a heroic character (optimized), it means that their character can no longer do their job (challenges get too tough). If your character can't actually adventure, retire it and play it in your Sims RPG game.I haven't seen this argument made in this thread. It's possible that I've missed it; if so, feel free to throw out a link where someone says, in this thread, that's acceptable to complain about being underpowered in this situation. If you can't do that, this is really just arguing against a strawman, or bringing in external baggage.

So to be able to play Joe Shmoe you need to be the load and depend on others to be the heroic characters (optimized), so why is optimizing bad again?You don't need to; the group can be 0 Joe Shmoes or all Joe Shmoes, or anywhere in between and it can work. The counter-example given was done to show the middle case, since that seemed to be the most relevant to what you were talking about, specifically: a single underpowered pc in a game where everyone else is far more optimized.

So now getting tougher (more optimized) as time goes on, assuming one is being an adventurer and facing danger versus deciding which plants to grow, is can be actual good roleplaying. "Is" is not the right word in that sentance; in some cases, not all, it can be good roleplaying. Sometimes it's good roleplaying to grow in other ways but not become more optimized.

Besides, getting tougher is not the same thing as getting more optimized; picking toughness as a feat when you level makes you tougher; simply gaining a level makes you tougher; I don't believe that anyone would argue that this makes you optimized.

Also, don't confuse characters with players.I'm not.

While a character may not "volunteer" a player certainly has.Certainly, but "a person [who] knew they didn't have capabilities that they wouldn't volunteer to go on adventures in the first place" seems to be very clearly talking about the character, not the player.

That player then has a responsibility to develop the character in response to the difficulties the character has faced. Not to ignore those difficulties and to not make the character tougher.This is game/campaign dependent, not some sort of universal fact

pres_man

2010-02-14, 10:15 AM

I haven't seen this argument made in this thread. It's possible that I've missed it; if so, feel free to throw out a link where someone in this thread says that's acceptable.If you can't do that, this is really just arguing against a strawman, or bringing in external baggage.

Sure. Here is one person talking about it, I think you might be familiar with this person, but perhaps not.

In his example, none of the characters are useless, and none have any problems with being weak until after someone comes in and starts an arms race with the GM by bringing a vastly more optimized character into the group.

Seems to be discussing about what I suggested to,

Sure they have, there are those people that complained that when someone in the party is actually playing a heroic character (optimized), it means that their character can no longer do their job (challenges get too tough).

Jayabalard

2010-02-14, 10:25 AM

Seems to be discussing about what I suggested to,Not at all; they're complaining that someone is changing the style of the game, not that "everything is too hard, because they just don't have the abilities necessary to actual do the job" ... they have the tools to do the job, they just don't want to change their play style.

pres_man

2010-02-14, 10:36 AM

Not at all; they're complaining that someone is changing the style of the game, not that "everything is too hard, because they just don't have the abilities necessary to actual do the job" ... they have the tools to do the job, they just don't want to change their play style.

Seems exactly what I said,

Sure they have, there are those people that complained that when someone in the party is actually playing a heroic character (optimized), it means that their character can no longer do their job (challenges get too tough).

Optimized heroic character causes the challenges to be too tough for the poorly built character. The player of the poorly built character complains that their character is no longer viable. Blames the optimized heroic character's player. You can describe it as (1) as an arms race with the DM or (2) changing the play style. But in either case it is exactly what I was talking about.

Kish

2010-02-14, 10:45 AM

So to be able to play Joe Shmoe you need to be the load and depend on others to be the heroic characters (optimized), so why is optimizing bad again?
Optimizing isn't bad, as long as it's not at the expense of roleplaying. Not-optimizing isn't bad, as long as it's not at the expense of roleplaying.

Expecting everyone to optimize, and saying that they're not adventuring if they don't? Bad. Insisting that your playstyle is innately superior, using terms like "actually playing a heroic character" and describing non-optimized characters as "poorly built" and therefore if you're disrupting a group the solution is for everyone else to adapt to be like you? Bad.

pres_man

2010-02-14, 10:56 AM

Optimizing isn't bad, as long as it's not at the expense of roleplaying. Not-optimizing isn't bad, as long as it's not at the expense of roleplaying.

Expecting everyone to optimize, and saying that they're not adventuring if they don't? Bad. Insisting that your playstyle is innately superior, using terms like "actually playing a heroic character" and describing non-optimized characters as "poorly built" and therefore if you're disrupting a group the solution is for everyone else to adapt to be like you? Bad.

The comment, "actually playing a heroic character" was in response to the charge that not everyone plays a heroic character. I was acknowledging that. So if the problem with the suggesting that not everyone's character is heroic, then you should probably focus that on another poster, not me. I was happy to suggest everyone was playing heroic characters, but it was pointed out to me that I was wrong.

Kish

2010-02-14, 11:03 AM

I'm pretty sure I'm addressing the right person to whom to address objections to terminology that claims designing your character to be totally optimized is inherently a superior playstyle. Or what's this "poorly built" business?

Ozymandias9

2010-02-14, 11:27 AM

Hey, like I said, if you prefer to play Sims the RPG, more power to you. I wouldn't exactly call that "adventuring", but I guess you feel it is.

What the heck is an "adventurer?" What drives your character to adventure. If they decided that when they grew up, they wanted to be a violent hobo, that might not go over so well at some tables. At others, it will be fine.

The characters represent people. Even extraordinary people aren't wholly single minded to the point that they engage in nothing that doesn't further their goals.

For example, let's consider Bob the Cleric. Bob has lived most of his adult life at a remote monastery of St. Cuthbert. As St. Cuthbert is a martial god, he trained for combat daily. And he has, of course, the scriptural knowledge expected of a cleric of his faith.

But he also lived at a monastery that was more or less self sufficient: how did he participate in the daily upkeep? What are his hobbies? In short, what is he other than "Bob, Cleric of St. Cuthbert?"

Just because this isn't important to your game, doesn't mean it's not important to some. Nor does it mean those people are playing "Sims the RPG"--he is still Bob, Cleric of St. Cuthbert, chosen by the god of justice. Given the challenges his god has called him to meet, he may very well one day be the High Cleric of St. Cuthbert: the sky might very well rain down retribution on his enemies one day.

That doesn't mean he can't enjoy playing the lute to unwind. Or that he doesn't enjoy working in the garden at the monastery, even if his duties do not allow much time for it these days.

Also, don't confuse characters with players. While a character may not "volunteer" a player certainly has. That player then has a responsibility to develop the character in response to the difficulties the character has faced. Not to ignore those difficulties and to not make the character tougher.

You seem to be laboring under the idea that once the character starts adventuring (willingly or accidentally), it becomes their only long term concern. They should certainly become better at "adventuring" as they do it more, but that doesn't mean they it has to be some all-consuming passion and they can never become better at anything else.

Zen Master

2010-02-14, 11:52 AM

Imagine a roleplay-meter, where at one end you have nothing but character roleplay, and at the other, you have nothing but tactical combat.

The stormwind fallacy would claim that the needle can point at both ends of the scale at the same time. That roleplaying and optimizing are entirely independent of each other. Actually, our friend Stormwind would likely say that the meter would need two needles.

But for most people, time really is a factor. And time spent optimizing also means you force your gamemaster, and the other players, to spend more time optimizing too. For the gamemaster to challenge you, or the other players to keep up with you, they need to be on an even footing.

The stormwind fallacy doesn't take this into account. Therefore, it is wrong. There is no fallacy, and optimizing does limit roleplay. Or you could say, roleplay limits optimizing. Of course, they are by no means mutually exclusive. They just tap the same ressource.

pres_man

2010-02-14, 12:33 PM

You seem to be laboring under the idea that once the character starts adventuring (willingly or accidentally), it becomes their only long term concern. They should certainly become better at "adventuring" as they do it more, but that doesn't mean they it has to be some all-consuming passion and they can never become better at anything else.

I would find it a strange bit of mental gymnastics to justify getting better at things not tied to adventuring, while adventuring. While not adventuring, sure, but while adventuring, well as I said, I'm sure someone could find a way to justify if with enough mental effort.

Ravens_cry

2010-02-14, 12:34 PM

Zen Master

2010-02-14, 12:49 PM

False dilemma, Acromos. Every time your in combat, your role playing a person in combat. There are rules for arbitration of such a combat so it it doesn't feel arbitrary, but it's still role play. Every time you do ANYTHING in a pen and paper RPG, your role playing. There is no needle, Neo!

No no no ... my argument absolutely holds, but clearly we disagree on the definition. Rolling dice to determine random outcome for actions is certainly not roleplaying. It is the tactical combat simulation that is a part of roleplaying games because we want to play heroes. You could easily have roleplaying games without combat what so ever. You can also have tactical combat games without roleplay what so ever.

pres_man

2010-02-14, 01:06 PM

No no no ... my argument absolutely holds, but clearly we disagree on the definition. Rolling dice to determine random outcome for actions is certainly not roleplaying. It is the tactical combat simulation that is a part of roleplaying games because we want to play heroes. You could easily have roleplaying games without combat what so ever. You can also have tactical combat games without roleplay what so ever.

Except you forget the fact that you can roleplay by just thinking about the depth of your character. Thus that can happen while rolling dice.

Zen Master

2010-02-14, 03:47 PM

Except you forget the fact that you can roleplay by just thinking about the depth of your character. Thus that can happen while rolling dice.

Well yes - anythings possible. But we're not talking about whether a given specific ever comes up. We're talking about how the game works in general terms.

Also, you seem to be forgetting that if you don't concentrate on your dice rolls, you will roll more critical failures, and fewer critical succeses.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 04:17 PM

I would find it a strange bit of mental gymnastics to justify getting better at things not tied to adventuring, while adventuring. While not adventuring, sure, but while adventuring, well as I said, I'm sure someone could find a way to justify if with enough mental effort.

I would find Pun-pun a strange bit of mental gymnastics, but it happened. Why is it so foreign to have a thought excercise dealing with artistic creation rather than mathematical creation?

Also, what do you mean by "adventuring"? Do you mean travelling around killing baddies and takin' loot? Say a party of adventurers that did not include a bard wanted to infiltrate some kind of acting troupe or orchestra. Picking up a few ranks in perform would be far from optimization, but it would aid greatly in the adventure at hand. It's not even the most practical strategy for doing so, but it might just be what the characters want to roleplay.

Further, I don't know if this instance has been discussed in this thread, but consider a smoker (or, taken to an extreme, a drug addict). With smoking (or Drug) rules, it makes little sense to play a smoker (addict) from an optimizational stand point. Does that mean nobody should play a smoker (addict)? If your answer is "well, you could take a flaw or something to get a feat out of it in order to make sure you don't lose anything", then what would you say to someone who wants to play a character suffering from his addiction (and not benefitting from it). Say that person wants to play out the conflict of his character's addiction in character. What if he wants his character to fail at certain tasks in order to play out his character's weakness? Have we not taken weaknesses into account? Plenty of "adventurers" have not been fit for "adventuring". They are far from the sims. Look at Frodo Baggins. Are you really saying he has no business adventuring?

Starbuck_II

2010-02-14, 04:25 PM

Further, I don't know if this instance has been discussed in this thread, but consider a smoker (or, taken to an extreme, a drug addict). With smoking (or Drug) rules, it makes little sense to play a smoker (addict) from an optimizational stand point. Does that mean nobody should play a smoker (addict)? If your answer is "well, you could take a flaw or something to get a feat out of it in order to make sure you don't lose anything", then what would you say to someone who wants to play a character suffering from his addiction (and not benefitting from it). Say that person wants to play out the conflict of his character's addiction in character. What if he wants his character to fail at certain tasks in order to play out his character's weakness? Have we not taken weaknesses into account? Plenty of "adventurers" have not been fit for "adventuring". They are far from the sims. Look at Frodo Baggins. Are you really saying he has no business adventuring?

He has a very high will save: so high even Gandalf is weak willed.
So I don't call Frodo unoptimized.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 04:46 PM

He has a very high will save: so high even Gandalf is weak willed.
So I don't call Frodo unoptimized.

I'm glad you think so, because Frodo is Joe Shmo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyman).

Samwise is the better example of everyman, but in this context, both characters fit rather well as an "ordinary" person thrust into an"adventuring" life.

satorian

2010-02-14, 05:00 PM

Tropes are descriptive, not prescriptive, and generally not a very useful tool in understanding a particular piece of fiction beyond the most outer layer of veneer. They are useful for generalization, and discussing themes, but not for understanding a paritcular work, except, as in the case of Star Wars, when the trope is purposefully added to make the piece feel more mythic.

As such, Frodo's character may be evidence for the existence of a trope, but that does not mean he follows the trope. Frodo is decidedly not average, nor is he intended to be so. His willpower is supposed to be the stuff of legend, literally so within the world. It is made clear that any lesser soul would have succumbed to the will of the ring, by the evidence of Gollum and Boromir, by the words of Aragorn, Gandalf, Galadriel and Faramir, and Sam.

He is highly educated, moreso than any hobbit but maybe Bilbo. He is diplomatic in the extreme, selfless, a leader that even the great pay heed to. He was hardy enough to survive, over rough terrain, the Ringwraith knife long enough to be treated.

Just because he wasn't a wizard or swordmaster doesn't make him mediocre.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-14, 05:02 PM

Agreed, I don't know why they call him average when Gandalf bows to Frodo's will.

It can't be about Hobbits as Sam can't carry the ring. It has to be something to do with Frodo.

Yes, Tropes lie. Frodo isn't the everyday man. Sam is, but then Sam isn't the hero.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 05:09 PM

Starbuck_II

2010-02-14, 05:32 PM

You're right. Samwise fits the trope much better. But is either character "optimized"? Is either character fit to adventure in a D&D party? Either of them would have to be significantly "carried" in some way by the other party members (and that's why I chose Frodo). By this thread's logic, that would make Frodo or Sam unfit for adventuring. Either character would better serve a D&D raid group adventuring party better by retiring or getting killed off.

Sam would maybe, but not Frodo. DM gave him an artifact so he is relevant. Which is a popular fix for a weaker party member. And a Macgriffin so plot works.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 05:35 PM

Sam would maybe, but not Frodo. DM gave him an artifact so he is relevant. Which is a popular fix for a weaker party member. And a Macgriffin so plot works.

So optimization isn't important at all. The DM just needs to give out major artifacts like candy to all of us ordinary folks.

...

Starbuck_II

2010-02-14, 05:58 PM

Interestingly, the ring grants different powers based on who weilds it. To spellcasters it seems to increase caster level. To others strength.
It kinda acts like a Legacy Item (do rituals to gain more power).

Though the basic powers are invisibility + longevity for just having it.

Oslecamo

2010-02-14, 06:03 PM

Though the basic powers are invisibility + longevity for just having it.

Technicaly it isn't invisibility. Is more of an etherealness. The user sees everything blurred at distance, and he can see spectres, while spectres see the user better.

Also, it's main power seemed to be the ability to command others, as Sauron's biggest fear was that the wielder of the ring would be able to combine all the forces of good to crush him.

Heck, even Samwise has dreams of uniting hoobitkind in a massive rampage trough Mordor!

That would've been fun.

Boci

2010-02-14, 06:07 PM

Also, what do you mean by "adventuring"? Do you mean travelling around killing baddies and takin' loot? Say a party of adventurers that did not include a bard wanted to infiltrate some kind of acting troupe or orchestra. Picking up a few ranks in perform would be far from optimization, but it would aid greatly in the adventure at hand. It's not even the most practical strategy for doing so, but it might just be what the characters want to roleplay.

So, your adventurer, wants to roleplay being an adventurer, and part of that is making choices that are not the most practical? Thats bad roleplaying.

Besides, with retraining its perfection possible.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 06:10 PM

So, your adventurer, wants to roleplay being an adventurer, and part of that is making choices that are not the most practical? Thats bad roleplaying.

You're right. That would be silly. I meant it might be what the players want to roleplay.

Originally Posted by Hallavast
Also, what do you mean by "adventuring"? Do you mean travelling around killing baddies and takin' loot? Say a party of adventurers that did not include a bard wanted to infiltrate some kind of acting troupe or orchestra. Picking up a few ranks in perform would be far from optimization, but it would aid greatly in the adventure at hand. It's not even the most practical strategy for doing so, but it might just be what the characters players want to roleplay.

There.

Boci

2010-02-14, 06:13 PM

You're right. That would be silly. I meant it might be what the players want to roleplay.

That's why retraining should be widely available. It prevents newbies from gimping themselves and solves the problem of your example.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 06:18 PM

That's why retraining should be widely available. It prevents newbies from gimping themselves and solves the problem of your example.

Haha. So... you pick up perform for this particular quest, then you retrain it later... and suddenly you can't act/play an instrument anymore... how much sense does that make? Besides, what if your character wants to pursue his acting career while adventuring? Or what if she wants to keep up proficiency with her instrument in her spare time for whatever reason? This is out of the question from an optimization perspective.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-14, 06:23 PM

I retrained my bike riding skills for math when I took Trig in High School. I still can't ride a bike (been 9 years) again.

Boci

2010-02-14, 06:24 PM

Haha. So... you pick up perform for this particular quest, then you retrain it later... and suddenly you can't act/play an instrument anymore... how much sense does that make?

You spend time each day practising something, then after you do not need it you spend your time otherwise and start to forget. Its been a long time since I passed my German exam and I know I'm no longer as good as I was back then. (And ninjaed by Starbuck II.)

Besides, what if your character wants to pursue his acting career while adventuring? Or what if she wants to keep up proficiency with her instrument in her spare time for whatever reason? This is out of the question from an optimization perspective.

No its not. You do not need perform ranks for your character to be able to play a musical instrument. Not everything about your character needs to be backed up by something on their sheet, somethings can be purely fluff.

Amphetryon

2010-02-14, 06:31 PM

Haha. So... you pick up perform for this particular quest, then you retrain it later... and suddenly you can't act/play an instrument anymore... how much sense does that make? How many folks took a foreign language to satisfy a graduation requirement in their high school or university, and a year later found themselves rusty enough at it that comprehension was almost nil in that same language? I personally know a few, myself included. In D&D terms, I took ranks in Speak Language, then retrained them away.

Most skills in Real Life (http://http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RealLife) deteriorate through lack of use. The fact that D&D's system requires this process to be abstracted to a certain degree isn't a departure from how it abstracts other aspects of reality - like HP, for example - to make the system internally consistent.

EDIT: Ninjas.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 06:35 PM

I retrained my bike riding skills for math when I took Trig in High School. I still can't ride a bike (been 9 years) again.

You forgot how to ride a bike...

That is literally something we compare unforgettable skills to. It's as easy as riding a bike. You'll remember, It's like riding a bike: you never forget. I haven't ridden a bike since JR high (about 8 years), and I Know I can still do it. The ability to consciously push something specific out of your head in order to learn something else seems superhuman. Forgive me if I have trouble understanding it.

You spend time each day practising something, then after you do not need it you spend your time otherwise and start to forget. Its been a long time since I passed my German exam and I know I'm no longer as good as I was back then. (And ninjaed by Starbuck II.)

There is a difference between getting rusty at something and completely forgetting how to do it. The former seems sensible. The latter does not.

No its not. You do not need perform ranks for your character to be able to play a musical instrument. Not everything about your character needs to be backed up by something on their sheet, somethings can be purely fluff.
It would be annoying if you later wanted to impress some NPC with a perform skill that you didn't have anymore... Many skills can not be used untrained.

Boci

2010-02-14, 06:40 PM

There is a difference between getting rusty at something and completely forgetting how to do it. The former seems sensible. The latter does not.

A game system that doesn't perfectly replicate reality? Common, you have to meet it halfway or all you're ever going to be doing is pointing out imperfect explainations for why X works that way in the game.

It would be annoying if you later wanted to impress some NPC with a perform skill that you didn't have anymore... Many skills can not be used untrained.

So impress them by making a grand speech about how you came up with the tune during an adventure and then play it. Guess which part influences their attitude.

You forgot how to ride a bike...

That is literally something we compare unforgettable skills to. It's as easy as riding a bike. You'll remember, It's like riding a bike: you never forget. I haven't ridden a bike since JR high (about 8 years), and I Know I can still do it. The ability to consciously push something specific out of your head in order to learn something else seems superhuman. Forgive me if I have trouble understanding it.

Maybe he knew some tricks on the bike that they can no longer safely perform.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 06:46 PM

A game system that doesn't perfectly replicate reality? Common, you have to meet it halfway or all you're ever going to be doing is pointing out flaws.
I'm simply showing a connection that some people refuse to recognise. It's not a flaw in the game.

Maybe he knew some tricks on the bike that they can no longer safely perform.

I've addressed this. Getting rusty at something is not the same as forgetting it entirely. I'd bet I couldn't pull wheelies and so forth right off the bat if I rode my bike today, but if I practiced for a few hours I probably could.

Boci

2010-02-14, 06:49 PM

I'm simply showing a connection that some people refuse to recognise. It's not a flaw in the game.

What, "I refuse to accept an explaination for a game mechanic that is plausable but not perfect, even though doing so would allow me to role play without sacrificing optimization?" Thats the statement you're standing for?

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 06:55 PM

What, "I refuse to accept an explaination for a game mechanic that is plausable but not perfect, even though doing so would allow me to role play without sacrificing optimization?" Thats the statement you're standing for?

No. The point is that if you want to keep the skill, you shouldn't have to retrain it. This is less than optimal, but it is sound from a RP standpoint.

The tangent on bike riding is really irrelavent.

Boci

2010-02-14, 06:59 PM

No. The point is that if you want to keep the skill, you shouldn't have to retrain it. This is less than optimal, but it is sound from a RP standpoint.

Its also sound RP to just say "My character carries a harp around with him and can play it" and not make suboptimal choices in the process. Remeber the exact wording of the Stormwind fallacy focused on the aspect that making suboptimal choices does not automatically make you a better roleplayer. This is a good example.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 07:04 PM

Its also sound RP to just say "My character carries a harp around with him and can play it" and not make suboptimal choices in the process.

Not if I want to use the skill in the game again.

Boci

2010-02-14, 07:08 PM

Not if I want to use the skill in the game again.

I've already addressed this. If you want to impress an NPC by playing your muscial instrument even though you have no ranks in perform, then do so by making a grand speech about how you came up with the tune during an adventure and then play it. Guess which part influences their attitude.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-14, 07:10 PM

You forgot how to ride a bike...

That is literally something we compare unforgettable skills to. It's as easy as riding a bike. You'll remember, It's like riding a bike: you never forget. I haven't ridden a bike since JR high (about 8 years), and I Know I can still do it. The ability to consciously push something specific out of your head in order to learn something else seems superhuman. Forgive me if I have trouble understanding it.

Yes, I literally can't do it at all. I can't do balance right. I know how it used to work, but I can't.
I tried for hours (on more than one day).
I've literally forgotten this skill.

That phrase and "It's common sense" make me groan because I can't do either.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 07:22 PM

I've already addressed this. If you want to impress an NPC by playing your muscial instrument even though you have no ranks in perform, then do so by making a grand speech about how you came up with the tune during an adventure and then play it. Guess which part influences their attitude.

No. See, I want to actually use the skill. And if I don't have diplomacy, I'm screwed anyway. You seem to be caught up on this. Replace perform with some other skill and see if you still have the same objection.

Yes, I literally can't do it at all. I can't do balance right. I know how it used to work, but I can't.
I tried for hours (on more than one day).
I've literally forgotten this skill.

That phrase and "It's common sense" make me groan because I can't do either.

Do you think that's typical of most people?

Amphetryon

2010-02-14, 07:24 PM

Do you think that's typical of most people?It's absolutely typical of all the murderous hobos I have ever seen.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 07:26 PM

It's absolutely typical of all the murderous hobos I have ever seen.

So you're saying human nature doesn't apply to any kind of adventurer at all? Why cling to the archetype?

Amphetryon

2010-02-14, 07:29 PM

Boci

2010-02-14, 07:30 PM

No. See, I want to actually use the skill. And if I don't have diplomacy, I'm screwed anyway.

How does diplomacy figure in here at all? You can still talk to NPCs even if you do not have ranks in diplomacy.

You seem to be caught up on this. Replace perform with some other skill and see if you still have the same objection.

Other skills though actually have uses. Perform does not. You are either a bard, in which case you must have it, or you are never going to need it. Luckily, the useless skills are also the ones that can be done without actually spending skill ranks.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-14, 07:31 PM

It's absolutely typical of all the murderous hobos I have ever seen.

Wait, does that make me a Hobo?

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 07:50 PM

How does diplomacy figure in here at all? You can still talk to NPCs even if you do not have ranks in diplomacy.

My mistake. I thought you were referring to using diplomacy.

[quote]
Other skills though actually have uses. Perform does not. You are either a bard, in which case you must have it, or you are never going to need it. Luckily, the useless skills are also the ones that can be done without actually spending skill ranks.

Profession.

Ride isn't good unless you've a mounted build. Disable device isn't good unless you have trapfinding.

But by the logic of having the skill but not having it on paper, I could similarly say my character can swim very well. You sometimes have to account for a DM who may want to test these talents.

Sometimes I want to say "my character tries to play a good song with the skills he picked up from that one time at 'band camp'". So if the DM says "ok. roll your perform." So then do I say "oh, no. I just want to tell this guy that I can play good and then play a crappy tune. That'll work, right?" and if the DM doesn't say "you two don't share a language", then he'll probably either say it didn't work or make me roll the dice and likely fail. That might get in the way of the story I wanted to tell through my character.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 07:56 PM

I'm clinging to an archetype I can - and have - justify mechanically for the purposes of the game. Others have also justified it. You may choose to ignore that justification for your campaigns as you see fit, but they have been spelled out.

Justified what? You ain't spelled out nuthin. Surely you don't view all adventurers as some kind of inhuman, murderous beings? You do pick and choose which human traits you want to follow. If I want to follow certain traits called "common sense" and "typical human memory tendancies", then I shouldn't be discouraged by the archetype, should I? You can't just assume every PC falls into the same set of extrordinary foibles because of... whatever arbitrary reason you've yet to present. I don't follow.

Boci

2010-02-14, 07:59 PM

My mistake. I thought you were referring to using diplomacy.

No, just plain talk. "Oh fair noble lady, we have slain the dragon that did threaten your realm. I bring you a scale from its body that you be see and always know it cannot harm you. However, the battle was firce and our recovery will be long, yet we have little time to stay, much as that does sadden me. If I may ask, could we recieve an escort to the borders of your land, to aid us whilst our wound heal?"

My character can make that request without diplomacy, and a DM would be a jerk for making it auto-fail just because I have no ranks.

Profession.

Another prime exmaple of a skil you can just have.

Ride isn't good unless you've a mounted build.

"My character grew up on a farm and knows how to ride a horse," They never actually fight from a mount so why does it matter that you have no ranks?

Disable device isn't good unless you have trapfinding.

And if your character concept hinges on you having disable device without trapfinding it deserves to be shot.

But by the logic of having the skill but not having it on paper, I could similarly say my character can swim very well.

The wonderful thing about D&D is that the useless skills are conviniently the ones you can be good at without spending skill ranks. Swim is not one of those, you actually have to have ranks. You can include in your background that you were the best swimming in your town. You are still going to drown in rough water.

You sometimes have to account for a DM who may want to test these talents.

When is your DM ever going to want to test your talents with the harp in a mechanical way?

Sometimes I want to say "my character tries to play a good song with the skills he picked up from that one time at 'band camp'".

Cool, your character succeeds. Since the result is mechanically irrelivant it does not require a check.

Surely you don't view all adventurers as some kind of inhuman, murderous beings?

There is another way to be an adventurer. Sure, it mostly monsters who are murdered, but its murder all the same.

then he'll probably either say it didn't work or make me roll the dice and likely fail. That might get in the way of the story I wanted to tell through my character.

At which point I would point at the George, the party's crusader, is always making plans, despite having no ranks in any knowledge or any feat that allows him to come up with co-ordinated strikes against opponent.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 09:02 PM

No, just plain talk. "Oh fair noble lady, we have slain the dragon that did threaten your realm. I bring you a scale from its body that you be see and always know it cannot harm you. However, the battle was firce and our recovery will be long, yet we have little time to stay, much as that does sadden me. If I may ask, could we recieve an escort to the borders of your land, to aid us whilst our wound heal?"

My character can make that request without diplomacy, and a DM would be a jerk for making it auto-fail just because I have no ranks.

I agree on this occassion, but not everybody has a DM that sees things from that point of view on this issue. And I don't think it is a big enough quibble for me to leave the table or insist on another DM over.

Another prime exmaple of a skil you can just have.

"My character grew up on a farm and knows how to ride a horse," They never actually fight from a mount so why does it matter that you have no ranks?

Ok. I see what you're saying. Your style is to just throw out rules when they infringe upon the divorce between mechanics and fluff. Fair enough, but you can't expect everyone to play that way.

And if your character concept hinges on you having disable device without trapfinding it deserves to be shot.
Hinge nothing. Maybe I just want a skill that fits with my character's backstory that I can model with mechanics. I prefer this kind of simulation in some instances (maybe not with this skill in particular, but I'm hoping you'll see what I'm saying without me spelling it out.

The wonderful thing about D&D is that the useless skills are conviniently the ones you can be good at without spending skill ranks. Swim is not one of those, you actually have to have ranks. You can include in your background that you were the best swimming in your town. You are still going to drown in rough water. You seem to have a special distinction between "useful skills" and skills like perform. Maybe you could clue me in on what you mean by this?

When is your DM ever going to want to test your talents with the harp in a mechanical way?

I think the skill goes something like: "I want to play my harp to earn money for an inn". DM says "K. Roll perform (harp) check." And then they roll a d20 and add ranks and modifiers to the check against a DC. If it meets or beats, then I succeed and earn a little money.

Cool, your character succeeds. Since the result is mechanically irrelivant it does not require a check. Why?

There is another way to be an adventurer. Sure, it mostly monsters who are murdered, but its murder all the same. So what does that say about the personality, character, and skills of an adventurer by necessity?

At which point I would point at the George, the party's crusader, is always making plans, despite having no ranks in any knowledge or any feat that allows him to come up with co-ordinated strikes against opponent.
There is no knowledge: planmaking. Co-ordinated strikes are part of flanking and maneuvers and stuff. Different rules(s). Still covered mechanically, though.

Boci

2010-02-14, 09:21 PM

I agree on this occassion, but not everybody has a DM that sees things from that point of view on this issue. And I don't think it is a big enough quibble for me to leave the table or insist on another DM over..

Thats a fault of the DM.

Ok. I see what you're saying. Your style is to just throw out rules when they infringe upon the divorce between mechanics and fluff. Fair enough, but you can't expect everyone to play that way.

No, but it does show that the choice between optimization and RP is false with the right style.

Hinge nothing. Maybe I just want a skill that fits with my character's backstory that I can model with mechanics. I prefer this kind of simulation in some instances (maybe not with this skill in particular, but I'm hoping you'll see what I'm saying without me spelling it out.

I can imagine a character who wants to be able to perform, dispite not being a bard, but a character who wants ranks in disable device without trapfinding? Not so much.

You seem to have a special distinction between "useful skills" and skills like perform. Maybe you could clue me in on what you mean by this?

When is perform ever going to influence your character? You may need to climb a cliff, or swim through a river. Unless your a bard, when will you need to perform? Same goes for profession.

I think the skill goes something like: "I want to play my harp to earn money for an inn". DM says "K. Roll perform (harp) check." And then they roll a d20 and add ranks and modifiers to the check against a DC. If it meets or beats, then I succeed and earn a little money.

You are at best going to earn a fraction of a %-tage of your Wealth by Level. Its not going to break the game if the DM allows you to make a couple of coins by playing your harp on the street corner for the majority of the day, despite having no ranks.

Why?

You didn't list any context.

So what does that say about the personality, character, and skills of an adventurer by necessity?

They murder for a career. If they are not good at that, they will have a higher chance of being murdered themselves.

There is no knowledge: planmaking. Co-ordinated strikes are part of flanking and maneuvers and stuff. Different rules(s). Still covered mechanically, though.

But the ability to make co-ordinated attacks, and come up with plans to implement them is just assumed. You don't need to spend skill points or feat or anything to gain the ability.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 09:35 PM

Thats a fault of the DM. Agreed, but I think that's a matter of preference (and I'd play in a game with such a DM if that's his only fault).

No, but it does show that the choice between optimization and RP is false with the right style.
Ok, maybe. But you can't fault folks for pointing out the existence of that choice in other styles

I can imagine a character who wants to be able to perform, dispite not being a bard, but a character who wants ranks in disable device without trapfinding? Not so much. Yeah. Not a good example for D&D 3.5.

When is perform ever going to influence your character? You may need to climb a cliff, or swim through a river. Unless your a bard, when will you need to perform? Same goes for profession.

You are at best going to earn a fraction of a %-tage of your Wealth by Level. Its not going to break the game if the DM allows you to make a couple of coins by playing your harp on the street corner for the majority of the day, despite having no ranks.

WBL is a guideline. Not a garauntee. I've lost all my character's worldly possessions more than once. If the DM wants to present it as a challenge, then circumstances can be contrived to make the roll significant. Like the Simpsons episode where the Mafia boss makes Krusty and Homer both do the bike trick. :smalltongue:

Not gamebreaking. But it could be important.

You didn't list any context. Surely you could imagine one.

They murder for a career. Not necessarily. That's an arbitrary limitation.

But the ability to make co-ordinated attacks, and come up with plans to implement them is just assumed. You don't need to spend skill points or feat or anything to gain the ability. No. Flanking isn't assumed. Nor is planning.

Boci

2010-02-14, 09:44 PM

Agreed, but I think that's a matter of preference (and I'd play in a game with such a DM if that's his only fault).

It is still a fault. And I find it hard to think of a DM who cannot imagine a character persuading without ranks in diplomacy to have that as his only fault.

Ok, maybe. But you can't fault folks for pointing out the existence of that choice in other styles

No, but it does mean that people who say "Optimizing will interfer with RP" are wrong. That will only happen if you cannot divorce fluff and mechanics.

WBL is a guideline. Not a garauntee.

Yes, but if adventurers are finding 6gp to be a big deal, that is not standard D&D anymore.

I've lost all my character's worldly possessions more than once. If the DM wants to present it as a challenge, then circumstances can be contrived to make the roll significant. Like the Simpsons episode where the Mafia boss makes Krusty and Homer both do the bike trick. :smalltongue:

Not gamebreaking. But it could be important.

You are spending hours to make a couple of coins. Even without your equipment you could just go out and kill some weak creatures such as orcs and earn more.

Surely you could imagine one.

For perform? No, not really.

No. Flanking isn't assumed. Nor is planning.

Okay not assumed, but you do not have to spend anything that could be used elsewhere for your character to know it.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 09:52 PM

Yes, but if adventurers are finding 6gp to be a big deal, that is not standard D&D anymore.

"Standard D&D" = more useless terminology

Besides, what if we're playing not Dungeons and Dragons, but some other game?

You are spending hours to make a couple of coins. Even without your equipment you could just go out and kill some weak creatures such as orcs and earn more.
Going out to kill creatures for their stuff presents a RP commitment that one shouldn't be forced to make. Performing is an alternative to murder. At level 1, you can't safely kill anything in naught but your clothes (at least nothing profitable).

For perform? No, not really.

But I just gave you one!

Okay not assumed, but you do not have to spend anything that could be used elsewhere for your character to know it.

But the point is that it is modelled by mechanics.

Boci

2010-02-14, 10:08 PM

"Standard D&D" = more useless terminology

Nope. The DMG states that WBL is counted into a parties assumed capabilities. Standard D&D* assumes that the thought of 100gp won't have a 4th level character gasping for breath. If so, he clearly doesn't have a magical weapon and thus cannot fight anything incorporeal (like shadows) or anything with DR: Magic. The game has therefor changed.

Besides, what if we're playing not Dungeons and Dragons, but some other game?

I do not know other gaming systems enough to tell you how to reflavour mechanical options to fit your character concept.

Going out to kill creatures for their stuff presents a RP commitment that one shouldn't be forced to make.

Standard D&D* assumes that since you are an adventurer, going out to kill something for money is not a problem.

"Performing is an alternative to murder. At level 1, you can't safely kill anything in naught but your clothes (at least nothing profitable).

So, your first level characters have no equipment, but are in a place where perform could actually be useful. That is going to be a vary short phase and clearly you are meant to be armed soon enough if you are to go on a quest, so who you should be rewarded for thinking of a way to make it happen.

"But I just gave you one!

A level specific one that involves a short lasting situation most DM won't use and directly interferes with the main features of the game.

"But the point is that it is modelled by mechanics.

Thats not the point. The point is that the DM you are describing will not make you spend skill points or a feat to gain the ability to make battle plans, but goes all up in hands when you say your character can play a musical instrument decently without spending skill points. Which do you thing is stronger?

*Standard D&D assumes the following:
1. High fantasy and magic - Even if you do not have a caster in the party, the very thought of one does not fill you with awe. You know they exist and have probably seen one before.

2. Absurdly high wealth. You +4 short cost half a tone of gold. Sure, you don't have to have the exact amount as listed on the table, but you will have something near that.

3. You are killers for higher. Be it the bandits, the dead rising or the dragon most of your challanges will involve killing, even if that is not the ultimate goal (it could be retrieve X item). Exactly who your emplyer is can be decided b y the DM. But the thought of murdering a monster for money and the thought of a job is the same for you.

Change any one of those points and you are not playing standard D&D anymore.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 10:29 PM

Nope. The DMG states that WBL is counted into a parties assumed capabilities. Standard D&D* assumes that the thought of 100gp won't have a 4th level character gasping for breath. If so, he clearly doesn't have a magical weapon and thus cannot fight anything incorporeal (like shadows) or anything with DR: Magic. The game has therefor changed.

I do not know other gaming systems enough to tell you how to reflavour mechanical options to fit your character concept.

Standard D&D* assumes that since you are an adventurer, going out to kill something for money is not a problem.
It seems you want to play only one style of only one specific game. Fair enough, but the RP/PG concept isn't limited to this game. I think you've made a fair point within your scope, though. I agree that it is possible (and easy enough) to play with a divorce of mechanics/fluff if you use the rules to do it.

So, your first level characters have no equipment, but are in a place where perform could actually be useful. That is going to be a vary short phase and clearly you are meant to be armed soon enough if you are to go on a quest, so who you should be rewarded for thinking of a way to make it happen.

They don't start without equipment. Sometimes they lose their posessions, though. However short the phase, you still need to overcome it, and at that point it is part of the game. Why is anything that costs below 1gp even in the PHB if everyone is to ignore games that deal with that low end of the spectrum?

A level specific one that involves a short lasting situation most DM won't use and directly interferes with the main features of the game. I was reffering to Homer (or perhaps a lighthearted game with an encounter modeled after that situation). I have no idea what level he is.

Which do you thing is stronger? Why should that matter? Are you competing with your crusader friend?

*Standard D&D assumes the following:
1. High fantasy and magic - Even if you do not have a caster in the party, the very thought of one does not fill you with awe. You know they exist and have probably seen one before.

2. Absurdly high wealth. You +4 short cost half a tone of gold. Sure, you don't have to have the exact amount as listed on the table, but you will have something near that.

3. You are killers for higher. Be it the bandits, the dead rising or the dragon most of your challanges will involve killing, even if that is not the ultimate goal (it could be retrieve X item). Exactly who your emplyer is can be decided b y the DM. But the thought of murdering a monster for money and the thought of a job is the same for you.

Change any one of those points and you are not playing standard D&D anymore.

So an urban game where you play a group of investigators that capture rather than kill, and focus on skills and rp to find clues/leads is not "standard D&D". I don't see the need for that distinction.

Boci

2010-02-14, 10:45 PM

It seems you want to play only one style of only one specific game. Fair enough, but the RP/PG concept isn't limited to this game. I think you've made a fair point within your scope, though. I agree that it is possible (and easy enough) to play with a divorce of mechanics/fluff if you use the rules to do it.

I have only ever been able to play D&D, but I have tried different versions of it, including DMing a low wealth game and playing in a rules light one (now that was wierd). I'm just saying that by default, there assumptions about a D&D game that will be made unless it is specifically said otherwise.

They don't start without equipment. Sometimes they lose their posessions, though. However short the phase, you still need to overcome it, and at that point it is part of the game.

So the fighter who has lost his weapon and whose only skills are climb, jump and swim. Obviously he is going to get his gear back, but how? Manual labour? Its not exactly a challange, and its not that mechanically relevant how you raise the money to re-arm yourselves, so why does it matter that much if you describe your character as spending the day strumming a harp on the street corner instead of ditch digging?

Why is anything that costs below 1gp even in the PHB if everyone is to ignore games that deal with that low end of the spectrum?

To increase realism and give some material to be used in less typical games. In the standard D&D game excatly how much less than 1gp something costs quickly becomes irrelevant.

Why should that matter? Are you competing with your crusader friend?

No, it matters because the DM is showing that he is very limited in imagining how mechanics and fluff interact and unable to see different interpretations of the mechanics of the game, which is a very bad trait.

So an urban game where you play a group of investigators that capture rather than kill, and focus on skills and rp to find clues/leads is not "standard D&D". I don't see the need for that distinction.

Well think about it this way: do you need to know that information before you make your character? I'd say you do.

Hallavast

2010-02-14, 10:55 PM

Well think about it this way: do you need to know that information before you make your character? I'd say you do.

Yes, absolutely. That's what the party template is all about. This is covered in the DMG.

Boci

2010-02-14, 11:01 PM

Yes, absolutely. That's what the party template is all about. This is covered in the DMG.

But you do not need to know the details for a standard D&D game. You roll up a character, all you need to make sure is that they can fight. You do not need to know any details, aside from what the other party members are so you do not accidentaly cover the same role.

A good thumb rule is that if the DM has to mention a specific detail of the game, it is not standard D&D. These can vary from a simple: its going to be undead heavy, to a more complex "its low magic. No full casters, low loot, monsters states are adjusted accordingly".

Now obviosly the standard D&D game can have variants. You could have one mission where the specific order is to bring something back alieve. But for the vast majority of the missions in a standard D&D game it will not kill matter if you kill the "target".

Tyndmyr

2010-02-14, 11:02 PM

Tyndmyr

2010-02-14, 11:04 PM

But you do not need to know the details for a standard D&D game. You roll up a character, all you need to make sure is that they can fight. You do not need to know any details, aside from what the other party members are so you do not accidentaly cover the same role.

This is ridiculously true. For certain levels of optimization, you don't even need to know that. It's more of a "feh, Im rolling a full caster. I don't need to worry about uncovered gaps".

A character that's only good in combat may be occasionally useless, but a character that's only good out of combat will be useless almost every night.

Boci

2010-02-14, 11:07 PM

If doing so would be against the queen's nature, then no...said DM would not be a jerk. You only need diplomacy for two things by RAW...arguing a point in a debate/oratory style or attempting to make someone friendlier to you.

So, if the queen is friendly(and she likely is, given your deeds), diplomacy is unnecessary by the rules. If she isn't...say she's duplicitous and evil, then yes, you will. Thus, depending on the story, a lack of diplomacy might indeed be a problem.

The key word there was auto. I am not demanding that the noble oblige just because my character praised her and used some poetic words, but if the DM autofailes the attempt because I do not have ranks in diplomacy, then they are a jerk.

Especially if you wish to portray your character as silver tongued, or well educated and noble.

Obviously for such a character ranks in diplomacy help. But if you want to play a silver tongued fighter, you probably won't want to waste skill points on diplomacy, and there is nothing wrong with you simple saying that your character is silver tongued and roleplaying him as such, even though you have no ranks.

Gametime

2010-02-14, 11:12 PM

If doing so would be against the queen's nature, then no...said DM would not be a jerk. You only need diplomacy for two things by RAW...arguing a point in a debate/oratory style or attempting to make someone friendlier to you.

So, if the queen is friendly(and she likely is, given your deeds), diplomacy is unnecessary by the rules. If she isn't...say she's duplicitous and evil, then yes, you will. Thus, depending on the story, a lack of diplomacy might indeed be a problem. Especially if you wish to portray your character as silver tongued, or well educated and noble.

Indeed, a reasonable DM would be, I think, more likely to either assign an appropriate modifier to your unskilled Diplomacy check or rule that the DC for such a check is reasonably low. They might have you take 10 on such a check, to represent that the circumstances are more important than your specific eloquence, but there's no particular reason to make the Diplomacy skill either hyper-relevant or completely irrelevant.

Gametime

2010-02-14, 11:14 PM

Obviously for such a character ranks in diplomacy help. But if you want to play a silver tongued fighter, you probably won't want to waste skill points on diplomacy, and there is nothing wrong with you simple saying that your character is silver tongued and roleplaying him as such, even though you have no ranks.

Such a character sounds either smarmy or just plain unconvincing, to me. Not that that's a bad thing - playing needlessly smug, eloquent characters can be lots of fun, but if you aren't good at Diplomacy then you aren't very good at convincing people to do things for you. No amount of role-playing is going to change that, any more than role playing your sorcerer as a battle-hardened veteran is going to give him a better base attack bonus.

Boci

2010-02-14, 11:22 PM

Such a character sounds either smarmy or just plain unconvincing, to me. Not that that's a bad thing - playing needlessly smug, eloquent characters can be lots of fun, but if you aren't good at Diplomacy then you aren't very good at convincing people to do things for you. No amount of role-playing is going to change that, any more than role playing your sorcerer as a battle-hardened veteran is going to give him a better base attack bonus.

Its a bit different though. Base attack bonus is clearly mechanical, but how you can influence other people is not so clear cut, since it is not completly reliant on diplomacy; other factors can influence it as well.

At the same time you can have a fighter who does have ranks in diplomacy but is not silvered tongued. A warblade. His speeches are not long and ridden with emotive words that bring tears to the eyes and the only form of address he ever uses is "sir" or nothing. But there is something about his simple, honest ways, his trustworthy eyes that causes people to sympathise with him.

As for a battle-hardened veteran sorcerer, you could say that age had dimished his combat skills but only enhanced the features that made him a captain. Or he could suffered from an incurable muscle wasting disease, ect.

Tyndmyr

2010-02-15, 08:46 AM

The key word there was auto. I am not demanding that the noble oblige just because my character praised her and used some poetic words, but if the DM autofailes the attempt because I do not have ranks in diplomacy, then they are a jerk.

If it's against their nature, you do get an opposed roll. However, if it's untrained for you...presumably the ruler of a kingdom will have a fair amount of ranks in diplomacy. Rolling is merely a formality, you will fail.

Obviously for such a character ranks in diplomacy help. But if you want to play a silver tongued fighter, you probably won't want to waste skill points on diplomacy, and there is nothing wrong with you simple saying that your character is silver tongued and roleplaying him as such, even though you have no ranks.

You can do so...but it may be hard to potray your character as silver tounged when he is unable to talk them out of tough situations. It's even worse if other characters, being more charismatic/trained, are able to do so and you can't.

Roleplaying can be supported by having a appropriately designed character mechanically.

Boci

2010-02-15, 09:25 AM

If it's against their nature, you do get an opposed roll. However, if it's untrained for you...presumably the ruler of a kingdom will have a fair amount of ranks in diplomacy. Rolling is merely a formality, you will fail.

You can do so...but it may be hard to potray your character as silver tounged when he is unable to talk them out of tough situations. It's even worse if other characters, being more charismatic/trained, are able to do so and you can't.

Yes, but if no one in the party has ranks in diplomacy, its not as if they cannot tilt social interactions into their favour with the right words, especially if they have just done some service to the local powers. Therefor, based on this, I find it reasonable to assume that you're character can have a way with with words without ranks in diplomacy, others will just be better.

Also, as I mentioned to Gametime, just because another PC has ranks in diplomacy does not always mean they are more silver tongued than you, they are just better at persuading others to see things there way, which can have a number of explanations.

Roleplaying can be supported by having a appropriately designed character mechanically.

Naturally, but on threads about the Stormwind fallacy one point always raised is that somtimes you want your character to be good at something but spending skill points on that is suboptimal, to which I offered a solution.

Tyndmyr

2010-02-15, 09:36 AM

Yes, but if no one in the party has ranks in diplomacy, its not as if they cannot tilt social interactions into their favour with the right words, especially if they have just done some service to the local powers. Therefor, based on this, I find it reasonable to assume that you're character can have a way with with words without ranks in diplomacy, others will just be better.

By raw, there are two listed uses for diplomacy. Making people like you is only one use. The other is opposed checks. Both of those are rather difficult untrained, and form a significant part of social interactions for those who claim to be silver tounged.

Also, as I mentioned to Gametime, just because another PC has ranks in diplomacy does not always mean they are more silver tongued than you, they are just better at persuading others to see things there way, which can have a number of explanations.

Being silver tounged IS the ability to persuade people to see things your way.

Naturally, but on threads about the Stormwind fallacy one point always raised is that somtimes you want your character to be good at something but spending skill points on that is suboptimal, to which I offered a solution.

You can optimize toward a goal, or multiple goals. There may be tradeoffs between different goals, but having a high diplomacy isn't generally regarded as sub-optimal.

You are confusing optimization with combat power. Combat power is merely one of many things that can be optimized towards.

Note that "I don't want to spend skill points on that" isn't a roleplaying goal at all, so it doesn't even address stormwind. Characters are not aware of skill points.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-15, 10:00 AM

By raw, there are two listed uses for diplomacy. Making people like you is only one use. The other is opposed checks. Both of those are rather difficult untrained, and form a significant part of social interactions for those who claim to be silver tounged.

Being silver tounged IS the ability to persuade people to see things your way.

Maybe you just have great smelling farts. So PC 1 talks great, and PC 2 farts. PC 2's farts are hyponotic like the hypono toad.

pres_man

2010-02-15, 10:37 AM

The perform issue is kind of a bad example. It only takes a DC 10 check to perform well enough to earn some money. It can also be used untrained. Which means that as long as you don't have a negative cha penalty, you can take a 10 and perform well enough. Toss in a masterwork musical instrument, and even someone with Cha 6 can make the check by taking a 10.

Boci

2010-02-15, 10:49 AM

By raw, there are two listed uses for diplomacy. Making people like you is only one use. The other is opposed checks. Both of those are rather difficult untrained, and form a significant part of social interactions for those who claim to be silver tounged.

So a party in which no one is trained in diplomacy cannnot succeed in persuading NPCs to do something?

Being silver tounged IS the ability to persuade people to see things your way.

It is not the only explanation.

You can optimize toward a goal, or multiple goals. There may be tradeoffs between different goals, but having a high diplomacy isn't generally regarded as sub-optimal.

You are confusing optimization with combat power. Combat power is merely one of many things that can be optimized towards.

Note that "I don't want to spend skill points on that" isn't a roleplaying goal at all, so it doesn't even address stormwind. Characters are not aware of skill points.

"I want my character to be silver tongued, but all my skill points are taken up by meeting a PrC requirements"

Tyndmyr

2010-02-15, 11:02 AM

So a party in which no one is trained in diplomacy cannnot succeed in persuading NPCs to do something?

They are relatively incompetent at doing so. They will be guaranteed to fail when attempting to argue against someone who has spent their entire life in an office of power, and possesses such skills.

It is not the only explanation.

Then what is the other explanation?

"I want my character to be silver tongued, but all my skill points are taken up by meeting a PrC requirements"

In an optimization context, a desired character concept can always be optimized. This is a much broader, and more flexible situation that the example given, which is again a mechanical one. If you give a concept like "I want my character to be a silver tongued, dashing swordsman", then that idea can certainly be optimized mechanically. It may involve using a class other than fighter in order to get more skill points, for example.

Boci

2010-02-15, 12:06 PM

They are relatively incompetent at doing so. They will be guaranteed to fail when attempting to argue against someone who has spent their entire life in an office of power, and possesses such skills.

Nope, that is your opinion. There is no RAW stating diplomacy is the only way to influence NPCs.

Then what is the other explanation?

Here's the example I posted earlier off the top of my head: A warblade. His speeches are not long and ridden with emotive words that bring tears to the eyes and the only form of address he ever uses is "sir" or nothing. But there is something about his simple, honest ways, his trustworthy eyes that causes people to sympathise with him.

In an optimization context, a desired character concept can always be optimized. This is a much broader, and more flexible situation that the example given, which is again a mechanical one. If you give a concept like "I want my character to be a silver tongued, dashing swordsman", then that idea can certainly be optimized mechanically. It may involve using a class other than fighter in order to get more skill points, for example.

I know and I have never been arguing against this point.

Tyndmyr

2010-02-15, 12:12 PM

Nope, that is your opinion. There is no RAW stating diplomacy is the only way to influence NPCs.

The rules are permissive. "The rules don't say I can't" is not legal.

So, replicating the use of diplomacy without using diplomacy is not legal unless you find an exception to the general rule.

Yes, there are other ways of influencing NPCs. Initimidate and bluff are obvious examples. Perform(Oratory) might help, depending on DM. However, the idea of replacing a valid use of a skill with nothing at all is certainly not legal by RAW.

Here's the example I posted earlier off the top of my head: A warblade. His speeches are not long and ridden with emotive words that bring tears to the eyes and the only form of address he ever uses is "sir" or nothing. But there is something about his simple, honest ways, his trustworthy eyes that causes people to sympathise with him.

Being sympathetic is entirely different from having a silver tounge.

I know and I have never been arguing against this point.

The key is in how you are arguing. Any fluff concept can be optimized mechanically. However, if you pull out a quasi-mechanical/fluff hybrid concept, it's possible to construct arguments for which no optimization is possible. By going down that route, you're actually arguing against stormwind.

Boci

2010-02-15, 12:20 PM

The rules are permissive. "The rules don't say I can't" is not legal.

So, replicating the use of diplomacy without using diplomacy is not legal unless you find an exception to the general rule.

Yes, there are other ways of influencing NPCs. Initimidate and bluff are obvious examples. Perform(Oratory) might help, depending on DM. However, the idea of replacing a valid use of a skill with nothing at all is certainly not legal by RAW.

Does not work like that. Social interactions are far too complex to not use rule 0 in. Its a severe failing of the DM if they do not.

Being sympathetic is entirely different from having a silver tounge.

So you cannot accept that as an explanation for why a PCs has ranks in diplomacy and thus as the DM will force them to use your own explanation?

The key is in how you are arguing. Any fluff concept can be optimized mechanically. However, if you pull out a quasi-mechanical/fluff hybrid concept, it's possible to construct arguments for which no optimization is possible. By going down that route, you're actually arguing against stormwind.

I am arguing against the people who will always give an example of a character concept, then a skill which has no place in it as evidence that the optimizing sometimes does interfere with rping. The lockdown fighter whose carpenter father dies and thus the fighter feels compelled to learn the trade, thus spending skill ranks in profession (carpenter) being a very good example.

Tyndmyr

2010-02-15, 12:29 PM

Does not work like that. Social interactions are far too complex to not use rule 0 in. Its a severe failing of the DM if they do not.

This is opinion. Players have a great deal of choice in where and how they opt to use these skills, and may indeed receive circumstance benefits or penalties according to RAW. None of that requires rule 0.

However, replacing a valid skill with rule 0 doesn't prove anything about optimization OR stormwind.

So you cannot accept that as an explanation for why a PCs has ranks in diplomacy and thus as the DM will force them to use your own explanation?

Nope. I never said that. I said they would not be considered silver-tounged. A character can use diplomacy or not use diplomacy at their will. I'd be highly suspicious of the concept of a character who doesn't need to do anything other than exist in order to use it. Diplomacy, in the books, is related strongly to communication. This could be sign language if you choose, or crude attempts at it, if you don't share a language(though this would normally be an unfavorable circumstance), but in order to use it....you have to actually communicate.

Standing there does not constitute communication.

I am arguing against the people who will always give an example of a character concept, then a skill which has no place in it as evidence that the optimizing sometimes does interfere with rping. The lockdown fighter whose carpenter father dies and thus the fighter feels compelled to learn the trade, thus spending skill ranks in profession (carpenter) being a very good example.

In this case, it's perfectly logical that the fighter who dedicates themselves to carpentry doesn't advance as swiftly in combat skills. Carpentry is still useful, and this could no doubt be optimized, for money during downtime between adventures, if nothing else. Someone here is no doubt capable of making a fighter who is good at both fighting AND carpentry.

However, your proposed solution of "Don't get the skill, but act as if you have it" would generally be considered munchkinry.

Boci

2010-02-15, 12:38 PM

This is opinion. Players have a great deal of choice in where and how they opt to use these skills, and may indeed receive circumstance benefits or penalties according to RAW. None of that requires rule 0.

However, replacing a valid skill with rule 0 doesn't prove anything about optimization OR stormwind.

How many DM will tell any PC without ranks in diplomacy to shut up doing social interaction? Because that is what you are essentially saying. Without ranks give up you won't achieve anything.

Nope. I never said that. I said they would not be considered silver-tounged. A character can use diplomacy or not use diplomacy at their will. I'd be highly suspicious of the concept of a character who doesn't need to do anything other than exist in order to use it. Diplomacy, in the books, is related strongly to communication. This could be sign language if you choose, or crude attempts at it, if you don't share a language(though this would normally be an unfavorable circumstance), but in order to use it....you have to actually communicate.

Standing there does not constitute communication..

Obviously he would talk, he just wouldn't be silver tongued when he does.

In this case, it's perfectly logical that the fighter who dedicates themselves to carpentry doesn't advance as swiftly in combat skills. Carpentry is still useful, and this could no doubt be optimized, for money during downtime between adventures, if nothing else. Someone here is no doubt capable of making a fighter who is good at both fighting AND carpentry.

Yes, but you may be short on skill points in which case you can just say "my character studied carpentry and although he does not know it that well, he has a better understanding of it than most".
Or you can spend skill point on craft (not profession). Either one works.

However, your proposed solution of "Don't get the skill, but act as if you have it" would generally be considered munchkinry.

Yes because altering fluff to gain no mechanical bonuses what so ever is clearly cheesy.

Tyndmyr

2010-02-15, 12:45 PM

How many DM will tell any PC without ranks in diplomacy to shut up doing social interaction?

You can talk. Talking is a free action, you can do that whenever.

It just may not work very well.

Obviously he would talk, he just wouldn't be silver tongued when he does.

So, he's diplomatic when not talking, but not using diplomacy when talking? I'm confused.

Yes, but you may be short on skill points in which case you can just say "my character studied carpentry and although he does not know it that well, he has a better understanding of it than most".
Or you can spend skill point on craft (not profession). Either one works.

You certainly can say he studied carpentry a bit, but not bother to give him the skill points. However, in general, if fluff diverges too heavily from what is supported by crunch, you run into wierd issues when your character claims to be great at something, but can't....actually do it.

This is why optimization is great for roleplay. Because you can actually play your desired level of competence.

Yes because altering fluff to gain no mechanical bonuses what so ever is clearly cheesy.

It sounded like you were advocating ignoring social skills, but being good at social stuff anyhow.

Anyone who describes themselves as having a silver tounge, but can't actually convince people of anything, has a rather significant roleplaying problem to overcome. It's not consistent. If you want him to actually be good at it, you invest the points.

Boci

2010-02-15, 12:58 PM

You can talk. Talking is a free action, you can do that whenever.

It just may not work very well.

At all is what you said. It won't work at all. Which is really really bad. I don't expect a character with no ranks in diplomacy to rival the party's bard, but if I cannot achieve anything in a social interaction then there is a problem.

So, he's diplomatic when not talking, but not using diplomacy when talking? I'm confused.

Basically he looks like a honest indevidual, and when he talks to people he does not fill his sentances with praise or emotive words. He has a straightforward aproach that sits well with people. This is how his diplomacy ranks are represented, but by his silver tongue.

You certainly can say he studied carpentry a bit, but not bother to give him the skill points. However, in general, if fluff diverges too heavily from what is supported by crunch, you run into wierd issues when your character claims to be great at something, but can't....actually do it.

If you want to be great at something, you need to spend skill ranks, I am not arguing that. However, you do not have to spend points to learn a bit of your fathers trade of carpetting, or to play a musical instrument.

For example, you do not need ranks in ride to travel by horse. So you can say your character grew up on a farm and thus knows his way around horses a bit better. He has 0 ranks in ride, so how is this relevant? He seems a bit more sure of himself when he's cantering, but still does not know enough to control his steed in battle.

It sounded like you were advocating ignoring social skills, but being good at social stuff anyhow.

No, I am advocating DMs giving PCs a chance to achieve something in a social interaction even if they do not have ranks in diplomacy, even if it is less than what the bard achieves.

Anyone who describes themselves as having a silver tounge, but can't actually convince people of anything, has a rather significant roleplaying problem to overcome. It's not consistent. If you want him to actually be good at it, you invest the points.

Silver tongued and really arrogant?

Lycar

2010-02-15, 07:01 PM

The perform issue is kind of a bad example. It only takes a DC 10 check to perform well enough to earn some money. It can also be used untrained. ...
As the PHB mentions: Making a DC 10 Perform check is basically begging.

Have fun with your 1d10 copper pieces. :smallamused:

"I want my character to be silver tongued, but all my skill points are taken up by meeting a PrC requirements"
Then obviously you don't want to be 'silver tongued' badly enough...

... to actually pay the price of admission.

See, that is a roleplaying choice: If the Fighter takes a level of (possibly feat-variant) Rogue to get those skill points he needs for his Diplomacy and a bit of Sense Motive, he may delay his entry into that prestige class. That is the price he pays. But if he actually wants to be a diplomat, he will gladly pay the price of admission.

If not? He, so he dreams about being a diplomat then. Fair enough. But he is not actually skilled. Unless certain rings or scrolls are involved, merely wishing to be 'silver tongued' does not make you so.

Here's the example I posted earlier off the top of my head: A warblade. His speeches are not long and ridden with emotive words that bring tears to the eyes and the only form of address he ever uses is "sir" or nothing. But there is something about his simple, honest ways, his trustworthy eyes that causes people to sympathise with him.
Really, is that so... to move people to tears he better took some ranks in Perform (Oratory). Otherwise the only tears he will provoke will be those of laughter about that self-delusional fool who believes to be a great orator.

It is quite simple really. You do not get to to make extra attacks in a round, just because your character concept is 'awesome swordsman'. Until you pay the price in DEX stat + TWF feat line, and/or meet the BAB requirements, no amount of backstory will you give any extra attacks ever.

Nothing stops you from describing his fighting style as a 'series of quick jabs and thrusts, multiple attacks to wear down the enemie's defenses and strike a devastating blow' however. Too bad he still only does 1d6+X with his rapier. But hey, it takes time to wear down an experienced opponent to the point where he can land that final mortal blow (that puts the enemy into negative hp).

The THW Fighter meanwhile makes a few but devastating blows and chops. They are not elegant, but woe unto the foe who fails to evade that mighty blade.

Same with Diplomacy: The rules are there. If you want to make people see things your way, invest into it. Otherwise you better use your 0 ranks to Aid Another the attempts of the real party face. These rules are there for a reason, you know. :smallamused:

And besides: If I was in the position of a player with a character who actually invested into, say, Diplomacy (or Carpentry for that matter), you better bet your WBL that I will be mightily annoyed if someone tries to get 'something for nothing'. That someone better be prepared to be challenged to a duel of skill at some time. Nothing better to deflate an ego as a summary defeat... :smallbiggrin:

At all is what you said. It won't work at all. Which is really really bad. I don't expect a character with no ranks in diplomacy to rival the party's bard, but if I cannot achieve anything in a social interaction then there is a problem.

Let's repharse that:
'I don't expect a character with no fighting abilities to rival the party's Codzialla, but if I cannot achieve anything in a combat then there is a problem.

In other words: If your character fails to 'pull his weight' in a social encounter, then obviously your built sucketh mightily. :smallbiggrin:

Or you could just realize that the Diplomacy rules, as bad as they are, are there to adjucate something that would otherwise be solely dependent on the skills of the players, not the characters.

Just because *you* are a great orator does not mean your character is. And vice versa. But the existance of the skill allows a shy player to play an outspoken character for example. For that they are a great boon.

On the other hand it is one more aspect where player skill got replaced by mechanics. In a freeform game, where everybody is comfortable with acting out their roles to their fullest, social skills are but a suggestion. But many players do not find acting out negotiations to be enjoyable. The would rather roll a die. Those players are given the opportunity to do so.

On the other hand, it forces everybody to actually invest into the skill.

Oh, and by the way: A DM who does not allow your no diplomacy warblade to outdebate the party bard is just doing his job.

Lycar

Boci

2010-02-15, 07:19 PM

Then obviously you don't want to be 'silver tongued' badly enough...

... to actually pay the price of admission.

See, that is a roleplaying choice: If the Fighter takes a level of (possibly feat-variant) Rogue to get those skill points he needs for his Diplomacy and a bit of Sense Motive, he may delay his entry into that prestige class. That is the price he pays. But if he actually wants to be a diplomat, he will gladly pay the price of admission.

If not? He, so he dreams about being a diplomat then. Fair enough. But he is not actually skilled. Unless certain rings or scrolls are involved, merely wishing to be 'silver tongued' does not make you so.

Or you could say your character is silver tongued without delaying your entrance to the PrC. It depends on what you mean by silver tongued. You can be silver tongued without having any particular skill at persuading others. Yuo still can persuade others, just like someone with no silver tongue can, but you won't be as good as diplomat.

Really, is that so... to move people to tears he better took some ranks in Perform (Oratory). Otherwise the only tears he will provoke will be those of laughter about that self-delusional fool who believes to be a great orator.

No actually. Not at all. This is an interpretation of how the warblade's ranks in diplomacy manifest, and is valid. You do not have to use it yourself, but it is unreasonable to deny it of another player.

Stuff

Nice speech. Unfortunatly it auto-fails due to not understanding my actual argument. I am not trying to get something for nothing. Better luck next time.

And besides: If I was in the position of a player with a character who actually invested into, say, Diplomacy (or Carpentry for that matter), you better bet your WBL that I will be mightily annoyed if someone tries to get 'something for nothing'. That someone better be prepared to be challenged to a duel of skill at some time. Nothing better to deflate an ego as a summary defeat...

Yes, someone is thinking about their character concept in an unconventional way. Better punish them, that uoght to teach them to try doing something unique like that. Now reroll as a dwarven fighter, and if I don't see alcohol mentioned in your backstory there is going to be trouble.

Let's repharse that:
'I don't expect a character with no fighting abilities to rival the party's Codzialla, but if I cannot achieve anything in a combat then there is a problem.

Completely different. You should not be making a character with no fighting abilities in a standard D&D game, but can be forgiven for not putting ranks into diplomacy.

In other words: If your character fails to 'pull his weight' in a social encounter, then obviously your built sucketh mightily. :smallbiggrin:

No, your build does not suck, the situation and the DM's handling of it does.

Or you could just realize that the Diplomacy rules, as bad as they are, are there to adjucate something that would otherwise be solely dependent on the skills of the players, not the characters.

A DM who sees the diplomacy skill as the only way to act in a social encounter is failing badly at his job.

Oh, and by the way: A DM who does not allow your no diplomacy warblade to outdebate the party bard is just doing his job.

I know. Is it my turn to list an example the bleeding obvious now? As I said earlier, to be a master carpenter, you had better spend skill ranks, but to just know something about it, you can just do it.

Riffington

2010-02-15, 08:10 PM

Completely different. You should not be making a character with no fighting abilities in a standard D&D game, but can be forgiven for not putting ranks into diplomacy.
I disagree. You should never be making a character with no communication abilities in any Roleplaying Game, but can be forgiven for not emphasizing fighting.

A DM who sees the diplomacy skill as the only way to act in a social encounter is failing badly at his job.
Agreed. Similarly, a DM who sees the combat rules as the only way to act in a hostile encounter is failing badly at his job.

Sometimes you can handwave the action scenes and sometimes you can handwave the verbal scenes. The verbal ones may be more fun to handwave, but you should be able to do both.

Boci

2010-02-15, 08:14 PM

I disagree. You should never be making a character with no communication abilities in any Roleplaying Game, but can be forgiven for not emphasizing fighting.

Huh? I did not say "no communication abilities", I said no ranks in diplomacy. Suddenly thats a must have skill?

And in a Roleplaying Game, where you role play a hero, you might want to consider adding the ability to fight.

Agreed. Similarly, a DM who sees the combat rules as the only way to act in a hostile encounter is failing badly at his job.

To avoid me responding to a point you never made, can you give a specific example of using something other than combat rules to act in a hostile encounter?

Riffington

2010-02-15, 08:25 PM

Huh? I did not say "no communication abilities", I said no ranks in diplomacy. Suddenly thats a must have skill?
No more than swordswinging is. You may get your way more via intimidation, or by having charismatic friends to back you up (much as a weaker character can have burlier friends to back him up in a barfight). But surely convincing someone to do what you want will be a part of every single game session? If you want to be bad at it, that's cool. But you should be aware of that going in.

And in a Roleplaying Game, where you role play a hero, you might want to consider adding the ability to fight.
Not all heroes can fight very well. Heroism and adventure take many forms. For instance, in the Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam were pretty key (and heroic) without being great at actual fighting.

To avoid me responding to a point you never made, can you give a specific example of using something other than combat rules to act in a hostile encounter?
Ignoring the precise letter of the rules and freeforming it. Just like one wants to do in so many conversations. During that freeform you would take into account both the listed combat/diplomatic skills of the character as well as the clever words/tactical moves described by the player.

Boci

2010-02-15, 08:33 PM

No more than swordswinging is.

There are plenty of other ways you're character can contribute in a fight.

You may get your way more via intimidation, or by having charismatic friends to back you up (much as a weaker character can have burlier friends to back him up in a barfight). But surely convincing someone to do what you want will be a part of every single game session? If you want to be bad at it, that's cool. But you should be aware of that going in.

Its hard though in a game whose mechanical representation favour combat so much more.

Not all heroes can fight very well. Heroism and adventure take many forms. For instance, in the Lord of the Rings, Frodo and Sam were pretty key (and heroic) without being great at actual fighting.

Irrelevant really. Once you start playing a 3rd level expert in a party of 6th level PCs, you have significantly changed the party dynamics.

Ignoring the precise letter of the rules and freeforming it. Just like one wants to do in so many conversations. During that freeform you would take into account both the listed combat/diplomatic skills of the character as well as the clever words/tactical moves described by the player.

The difference is combat rukes in D&D is spelt out pretty clearly. The rules for social interaction are not.

Riffington

2010-02-15, 08:39 PM

There are plenty of other ways you're character can contribute in a fight.
Absolutely. Also there a plenty of ways that your "drunken mutterings" can contribute to a negotiation scene or that your oblivious preening can contribute to a fight scene.

Its hard though in a game whose mechanical representation favour combat so much more.... The difference is combat rukes in D&D is spelt out pretty clearly. The rules for social interaction are not.

See now, this is where your mistake lies. Just because you have complicated rules for something doesn't mean you have to use them all the time (or even ever). It just means that it was more fun for the game designers to design those specific rules (or they thought those rules would, for various reasons, be more likely to sell copies).
You include in your game those things that your particular players want more of, not those things that some writer decided to put in.

Boci

2010-02-15, 08:43 PM

Absolutely. Also there a plenty of ways that your "drunken mutterings" can contribute to a negotiation scene or that your oblivious preening can contribute to a fight scene.

That all I wanted. "Yes, your character can contribute to the social interaction even though he has no ranks in diplomacy."

See now, this is where your mistake lies. Just because you have complicated rules for something doesn't mean you have to use them all the time (or even ever). It just means that it was more fun for the game designers to design those specific rules (or they thought those rules would, for various reasons, be more likely to sell copies).

But if you are just going to ignore the rules for combat which make up what, 70% of the book, don't you think a different game might be an idea?

You include in your game those things that your particular players want more of, not those things that some writer decided to put in.

And the former is influenced by the latter. Players will want stuff that the rules cover. Otherwise they wouldn't be playing a rules heavy game like D&D.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 08:47 PM

But if you are just going to ignore the rules for combat which make up what, 70% of the book, don't you think a different game might be an idea?

Combat rules make up exactly one chapter of the PHB. The same number of chapters is dedicated to skills, but we've previously agreed that it is ok to ignore skill rules unless they pertain to combat.

Boci

2010-02-15, 08:50 PM

Combat rules make up exactly one chapter of the PHB.

And how many of the rules are linked pretty closly to combat as opposed to social interaction?

The same number of chapters is dedicated to skills, but we've previously agreed that it is ok to ignore skill rules unless they pertain to combat.

Personally I feel you're missing out if you ignore non-combat skills, but if that is what you want then go for it.

Riffington

2010-02-15, 08:54 PM

That all I wanted.
Cool. Glad we could agree. :)

But if you are just going to ignore the rules for combat which make up what, 70% of the book, don't you think a different game might be an idea...
And the former is influenced by the latter. Players will want stuff that the rules cover. Otherwise they wouldn't be playing a rules heavy game like D&D.

If I understand your theory, it goes like this:
*Gamers always choose the game system that best matches the game they want to play.
*For a low-combat high-social game, D&D is not the best system.
*Therefore D&D players can be assumed to want endless fight scenes punctuated by brief periods of dialogue.

I disagree. I think the choice of system is always a compromise, and most people who pick D&D do so because it's famous. Furthermore, they usually think of it as a roleplaying game rather than as a wargame (correctly or not), and therefore that conception carries over: many if not most players want to roleplay more than they want to follow the rules. Your specific group may be different, of course. But in most groups I've played with, if you have a cool negitiation or fight scene with random new rules thrown in, the scene will be judged more on cool descriptions and tense drama and than on the specific mechanics. This goes double if the beer's good.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 08:59 PM

And how many of the rules are linked pretty closly to combat as opposed to social interaction?

Why limit it to "social interaction"? I was comparing combat and skills. I'd say it would go relatively even. Skill challenges are encounters, too. If you're going to say that your "standard D&D" version is all about combat and nothing else, then I'd have to disagree that it is, in fact, standard.

Personally I feel you're missing out if you ignore non-combat skills, but if that is what you want then go for it.

It's not what I want, Boci. It's what we agreed you needed to do to enforce the divorce.

Boci

2010-02-15, 09:04 PM

If I understand your theory, it goes like this:
*Gamers always choose the game system that best matches the game they want to play.

No, they should chose the game system that best matches the game they want to play. It doesn't mean they secceed.

*For a low-combat high-social game, D&D is not the best system.

This I firmly believe.

*Therefore D&D players can be assumed to want endless fight scenes punctuated by brief periods of dialogue.

Not really that, so much as heavy rule presence in combat and more relaxed in social encounters to reflex the uneven focus of the rules.

I disagree. I think the choice of system is always a compromise, and most people who pick D&D do so because it's famous. Furthermore, they usually think of it as a roleplaying game rather than as a wargame (correctly or not), and therefore that conception carries over: many if not most players want to roleplay more than they want to follow the rules.

So when the two interfere look for a way to side step the rules. Shame in D&D thats hard for non-combatant characters.

Your specific group may be different, of course. But in most groups I've played with, if you have a cool negitiation or fight scene with random new rules thrown in, the scene will be judged more on cool descriptions and tense drama and than on the specific mechanics. This goes double if the beer's good.

I agree with this, but I don't believe it changes the fact that for a social interaction heavy game, D&D is not the best.

Why limit it to "social interaction"?

Because that was the topic at hand.

I was comparing combat and skills. I'd say it would go relatively even. Skill challenges are encounters, too. If you're going to say that your "standard D&D" version is all about combat and nothing else, then I'd have to disagree that it is, in fact, standard.

Spells in players handbook. Most of them are combat related. The rules are not split equally between the two. But besides, I was talking about combat and social interactions, not combat and skills.

It's not what I want, Boci. It's what we agreed you needed to do to enforce the divorce.

I know its not what you want, I was just going eye-for-eye with your attempt to put words in my mouth. I never agreed thats what I need.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 09:27 PM

I never agreed thats what I need.

Then how do you enforce it? Perhaps I misunderstand you. Skills like perform, diplomacy, et al. have mechanical uses, but you would rather throw them out because... why?

Boci

2010-02-15, 09:30 PM

Then how do you enforce it? Perhaps I misunderstand you. Skills like perform, diplomacy, et al. have mechanical uses, but you would rather throw them out because... why?

If you want your character to be able to play the harp, he can. He doesn't spend any skill ranks, he just can. He carries a harp around with him and occasionally plucks a tune on it. Nothing special, but it doesn't inspire those around him to rip their ear drums out.

If you want your character to be a master of the harp, you spend skill points.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 09:37 PM

If you want your character to be able to play the harp, he can. He doesn't spend any skill ranks, he just can. He carries a harp around with him and occasionally plucks a tune on it. Nothing special, but it doesn't inspire those around him to rip their ear drums out.

If you want your character to be a master of the harp, you spend skill points.

Yes. This is your example of throwing out the perform skill. But I asked why. Because this is not how the skill works by the book. The book has rules on it (that you don't seem think are important unless you're a Bard, which originally led me to believe you don't consider skills useful unless they pertain to combat).

Boci

2010-02-15, 09:49 PM

Yes. This is your example of throwing out the perform skill. But I asked why.

So your character can save skill points in case they are needed elsewere, whilst still being able to play the harp like you imagined them.

Because this is not how the skill works by the book. The book has rules on it

The rules has no relevance for whether or not you can play a basic tune on the harp.

(that you don't seem think are important unless you're a Bard, which originally led me to believe you don't consider skills useful unless they pertain to combat).

Unless your a bard, its hardly ever going to matter exactly how many ranks you have in perform. So in this case you are right, I don't believe in using the rules for the non-combat functions of the perform skill, provided you just want your character to carry a harp around and occasionally play a tune on it. I can't really see any other general purpose.

The_JJ

2010-02-15, 09:55 PM

Somebody here needs to change their avatar. It's like watching twins bicker, I can never tell which side I'm on.

Boci

2010-02-15, 09:59 PM

Somebody here needs to change their avatar. It's like watching twins bicker, I can never tell which side I'm on.

That help?

Mike_G

2010-02-15, 10:00 PM

You guys are arguing over a disconnect between your gaming styles.

Boci is favoring the "Just roleplay it" theory of social interaction. If you want to convince the King to lend you the Royal Fleet to support your quest, you say to the DM what your character says to the king, and you play it out, sans dice. Save your Skill Points for things like Tumble, where you need to beat a 20 DC to move through a threatened space.

The counter to this, is that if a fat, uncoordinated guy can play a Thief Acrobat by simulating exploits with dice rolls, why can't a stammering, shy introvert play Don Juan by simulating social interactions with dice rolls? The rules exist.

The first way is perfectly valid, and is how we did it in the old days before there was a Diplomacy skill. The DM might ask for a Cha check, and modiy it based on how nice a story you could spin, but there wer no "skill points" to "waste" on something you could just BS.

Enforcing a Diplomacy check at DC 20 to get the King to lend you his fleet/free access to the royal mage/the keys to his daughter's chastity belt is also a valid play style, and chances are the guy who spent all his time learning to satb goblins and none practicing on the Debate team is gonna fail.

Persuasion, debate and oratory are skkills that you learn and practice at. Lawyers, priests and politicians, as Sting says, "spend their points" here. Requiring a roll to convince someone to come around to your way of thinking in a simulation isn't "Bad DMing" any more than requiring a roll to hit in combat. The system is simulating what a PC whose abilities are totally different than the player's can accomplish.

It's all down to style. In practice, as a DM I force a roll, but modify it based on how well the player can spin the argument. That rewards clever players, but also rewards a PC who spent points on the skill and didn't dump CHA.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 10:05 PM

So your character can save skill points in case they are needed elsewere, whilst still being able to play the harp like you imagined them.
The rules has no relevance for whether or not you can play a basic tune on the harp.

The perform skill as per the PHB:

You are skilled in a type of artistic expression, which may encompass a variety of special methods, and you know how to put on a show.

The skill then goes on to describe impressing an audience and giving DCs and outcomes on a table. This means playing a tune on a harp would fall under perform.

Unless your a bard, its hardly ever going to matter exactly how many ranks you have in perform. So in this case you are right, I don't believe in using the rules for the non-combat functions of the perform skill, provided you just want your character to carry a harp around and occasionally play a tune on it. I can't really see any other general purpose.

So, ok. What you need is a house rule, then. Since you are completely ignoring the primary function of the skill, you are essentially throwing it out. As a house rule, you could simply make this skill a part of the Bardic Music ability, since nobody in their right mind would want to take the skill if they weren't a bard. That's a fine and dandy house rule, but it isn't "standard D&D", to use your terminology.

The fact that you can change the rules to "enforce the divorce" doesn't mean powergaming and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. You are simply altering the game to make it so. This is fine, but it doesn't negate the argument against stormwind.

That help?

Aw... now we aren't twins anymore. :smallfrown:

Boci

2010-02-15, 10:06 PM

Requiring a roll to convince someone to come around to your way of thinking in a simulation isn't "Bad DMing" any more than requiring a roll to hit in combat. The system is simulating what a PC whose abilities are totally different than the player's can accomplish.

That is not quite what I meant. I said making a character without ranks in diplomacy useless in a social interaction is bad DMing.

As I said, I don't mind diplomacy aiding a social interaction, I just do not want it to be mandatory.

The_JJ

2010-02-15, 10:08 PM

It works.

I was going to post here about optimization, but it seems we've moved to a Gameplay/Story Segregation argument with lots of ego involved.

I will say ths however:

First Rule, do not talk about roleplaying club.

Zeroth Rule, DM > RAW

Negative First Rule, Enjoyment of the Group > what some dude on the internet says is best for the system.

That is all.

Now stop fighting unless you're actually at the table role/rolling.

Boci

2010-02-15, 10:09 PM

since nobody in their right mind would want to take the skill if they weren't a bard.

I do not need to house rule that, it is already the case. Unless you a a bard, it is a less versatile and useful form of craft, so why would anyone actually put ranks in it unless they needed them to meet the reqs of something? Or your DM actually allowed you to atract some outsider which the skill, which I have never heard happen.

The fact that you can change the rules to "enforce the divorce" doesn't mean powergaming and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. You are simply altering the game to make it so. This is fine, but it doesn't negate the argument against stormwind.

But there is no changing of rules.

It works.
I was going to post here about optimization, but it seems we've moved to a Gameplay/Story Segregation argument with lots of ego involved.

The way I see it people seem confused by my aproach that your character can have traits that aren't backed up by something on their character sheet.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 10:13 PM

I do not need to house rule that, it is already the case. Unless you a a bard, it is a less versatile and useful form of craft, so why would anyone actually put ranks in it?

But there is no changing of rules.

You're not using the skill as written. You are using a nonstandard interpretation of the rules based on your preference of play. Why not houserule it, since you're creating a defacto absence of that skill (which is a change). You are completely not using a skill in the book, and you are scorning its use by anyone else. This is the same as erasing the text.

Boci

2010-02-15, 10:14 PM

You're not using the skill as written. You are using a nonstandard interpretation of the rules based on your preference of play. Why not houserule it, since you're creating a defacto absence of that skill (which is a change). You are completely not using a skill in the book, and you are scorning its use by anyone else. This is the same as erasing the text.

I'm talking about flavour, the rules have no place here. The fact that my fighter has a harp and sometimes plays a tune on it is flavour, so the rules and the interpretation of them have no place in the equation.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 10:17 PM

I'm talking about flavour, the rules have no place here.

This is only true if we use your special version of the rules.

Boci

2010-02-15, 10:22 PM

This is only true if we use your special version of the rules.

No, it isn't. I have two fighter. Both have equal states, equal feat, both wield a greatsword, both have maxed out ranks in climb, jump and swim. One of them will pass the time at camp by recounting tales of his battle against the elves in the Silver Pine Forest. The other will listen to what others have to say, holding his harp and occasionally attempting a tune. How is the difference between these two fighters anything but flavour?

SaintRidley

2010-02-15, 10:27 PM

Your fighter may have a harp and play a tune on it occasionally, but don't expect him to do anything useful with that harp without skill points to represent that he's actually learning something beyond random strummings.

Likewise, your sorcerer may have a voice and talk sometimes, but if you want him to be good at lying or to be able to negotiate beyond the effect of general likeability and a sense of "This guy seems like someone to listen to for some reason, then you'd better put some points into bluff and diplomacy.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 10:31 PM

No, it isn't. I have two fighter. Both have equal states, equal feat, both wield a greatsword, both have maxed out ranks in climb, jump and swim. One of them will pass the time at camp by recounting tales of his battle against the elves in the Silver Pine Forest. The other will listen to what others have to say, holding his harp and occasionally attempting a tune. How is the difference between these two fighters anything but flavour?

Well, sometimes a group will want a story that makes a point about these differences. Some groups don't see flavor/fluff as something that only comes up between encounters. IF a fighter wants his harp playing skills to have an impact on the story, wouldn't it make sense for him to take a few ranks so he could "impress an audience" (just like the perform skill says)? If you just want to handwaive it, fine. That's a nice houserule. But if you want to succeede or fail by the fall of the dice, you'll probably want some ranks. Sometimes you want to use dice to help you tell the story outside of combat as well. It's a playstyle. Why scorn it simply to "enforce the divorce"? Is it because you want all the advantages of not spending the points as well? How is that not munchkinry?

Boci

2010-02-15, 10:32 PM

Your fighter may have a harp and play a tune on it occasionally, but don't expect him to do anything useful

When did I ever say he can do something useful with it?

with that harp without skill points to represent that he's actually learning something beyond random strummings.

Why must he only know random strummings? Why can't he have learnt a simple tune?

Well, sometimes a group will want a story that makes a point about these differences. Some groups don't see flavor/fluff as something that only comes up between encounters. IF a fighter wants his harp playing skills to have an impact on the story, wouldn't it make sense for him to take a few ranks so he could "impress an audience"? If you just want to handwaive it, fine.

We've already covered this. You talk to the ladies, play a bit, and impress them based on that. Not as much as a bard could have, and no more than simple talking to them would have, but they will hardly be ordering your execution or something

That's a nice houserule.

You can say house rule as many times as you like. It is still irrelevant to the topic at hand.

But if you want to succeede or fail by the fall of the dice, you'll probably want some ranks.

Succeed or fail on what?

Sometimes you want to use dice to help you tell the story outside of combat as well. It's a playstyle. Why scorn it simply to "enforce the divorce"? Is it because you want all the advantages of not spending the points as well? How is that not munchkinry?

No, but spending points on perform and then complaining that sometimes you need to sacrifice to rp is like throwing money away and then complaining how broke you are.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 10:43 PM

You can say house rule as many times as you like. It is still irrelevant to the topic at hand. It is relevant. You're substituting your little handwavy thing for a rule in the PHB.

Succeed or fail on what?
Impressing the audience.

No, but spending points on perform and then complaining that sometimes you need to sacrifice to rp is like throwing money away and then complaining how broke you are.
It's more like spending it to go see a movie. And complaining is a separate issue.

Boci

2010-02-15, 10:47 PM

It is relevant. You're substituting your little handwavy thing for a rule in the PHB.

I am not changing any rule. Just like saying that a wizard casts spells by praying to their god changes no rules.

Impressing the audience.

Talk and play. He impresses the audience as much as another party member without ranks could by telling a story.

It's more like spending it to go see a movie. And complaining is a separate issue.

Huh?

pres_man

2010-02-15, 10:54 PM

As I pointed out before. A fighter with a harp can play a tune on it without skill ranks, you can use the skill untrained. He won't be very good with it probably, but big deal. Nobody is stopping him, not the rules or the DM. Just like you don't have to have ranks in perform (dance) to do the middle school dance (stand there take steps in a circle). It isn't going to make you any money working as a back up for a stage performance, but big deal.

On the other hand, if you want your harp playing to actually be effective, and to do that without putting ranks in peform, then you got a problem by the RAW.

SaintRidley

2010-02-15, 10:54 PM

Why must he only know random strummings? Why can't he have learnt a simple tune?

Well, let me know when he does something more impressive than Hot Cross Buns. Natural talent only gets you so far.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 10:55 PM

I am not changing any rule. Just like saying that a wizard casts spells by praying to their god changes no rules. Oh no? What's that spellbook for? You know? The one that's worth thousands of GP?

Talk and play. He impresses the audience as much as another party member without ranks could by telling a story.
You're ignoring the "by the fall of the dice" part. Which is what the hypothetical character/party wants to do.

Huh?

Quote:
No, but spending points on perform and then complaining that sometimes you need to sacrifice to rp is like throwing money away and then complaining how broke you are.

I would rather liken "spending points on perform" to spending money (a scarce resource, like skill points) on seeing a movie (something with temporary value, like perform ranks). I don't know why one would complain in either case. Thus it is a separate issue. Complaining is bad in general. Nobody said you should complain about your "sacrifices".

Boci

2010-02-15, 10:59 PM

Oh no? What's that spellbook for? You know? The one that's worth thousands of GP?

Casts. He prepares spells by studying the book of his faith each day. to actually cast it, he mutter a few words of praise to his god, sometimes accompanied with a simple hand gesture.

You're ignoring the "by the fall of the dice" part. Which is what the hypothetical character/party wants to do.

So roll a dice.

I would rather liken "spending points on perform" to spending money (a scarce resource, like skill points) on seeing a movie (something with temporary value, like perform ranks). I don't know why one would complain in either case. Thus it is a separate issue. Complaining is bad in general. Nobody said you should complain about your "sacrifices".

I'm just saying one of the counter arguments to "role playing and optimizing are mutually exclusive" is that you cannot have a fighter who plays a harp. But you can, as I just demonstrated.

Well, let me know when he does something more impressive than Hot Cross Buns. Natural talent only gets you so far.

He doesn't need to go far.

SaintRidley

2010-02-15, 11:06 PM

Well, if all we want is natural talent then why are we having a discussion?

Boci

2010-02-15, 11:11 PM

Well, if all we want is natural talent then why are we having a discussion?

Because people seem to be incapable of accepting "can play basic tunes on harp" as a character trait no different from "suspicious" or "has red hair".

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 11:14 PM

Casts. He prepares spells by studying the book of his faith each day. to actually cast it, he mutter a few words of praise to his god, sometimes accompanied with a simple hand gesture.
Why is there a difference between him and that guy over there that has a holy symbol and wears armor and uses better weapons and casts a different kind of magic and is wiser but less book smart and can strike fear into mindless undead?
Nevermind. The issue is rather separate.

So roll a dice.
That would be a perform check. See, if I want my character to actually have "skill", then he'd be well suited to having ranks (which give him a better chance at succeeding on said check). This is how skills work.

I'm just saying one of the counter arguments to "role playing and optimizing are mutually exclusive" is that you cannot have a fighter who plays a harp. But you can, as I just demonstrated.
I understand, but that's not the argument I'm using.

He doesn't need to go far.

What happens when he does "need" to go far, but he has no ranks? What if he wants his insignificant little talent to be better than the average commoner minstrel's? These are RP decisions, but they are affected by mechanics as per the rules if you want any consistency.

Boci

2010-02-15, 11:18 PM

Nevermind. The issue is rather separate.

No, it is exactly the same. Manipulating flavour for no mechanical benefit. And to answer your origional querry, its because his devotion to his faith is different.

That would be a perform check. See, if I want my character to actually have "skill", then he'd be well suited to having ranks (which give him a better chance at succeeding on said check). This is how skills work.

Yes, but if you want to be good at performing, there is a base class that might interest you.

What happens when he does "need" to go far, but he has no ranks? What if he wants his insignificant little talent to be better than the average commoner minstrel's? These are RP decisions, but they are affected by mechanics as per the rules if you want any consistency.

What happens when the fate of the world is dependant on my fighters skills with the harp? I'll probably quite the game.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 11:28 PM

No, it is exactly the same. Manipulating flavour for no mechanical benefit. And to answer your origional querry, its because his devotion to his faith is different. You're right. But in this case it is inconsequential, because there is no alternative. Unlike ignoring an entire skill. Besides, we already have an example to work from.

Yes, but if you want to be good at performing, there is a base class that might interest you. You are dealing with extremes. Is everything about your characters either "of utmost importance to the character build and concept" or "so inconsequential that I need not put it on my sheet"? There is a medium setting, you know. You seem to be hell bent on dancing around it.

What happens when the fate of the world is dependant on my fighters skills with the harp? I'll probably quite the game.

That's not what I asked.

Boci

2010-02-15, 11:34 PM

You're right. But in this case it is inconsequential, because there is no alternative. Unlike ignoring an entire skill. Besides, we already have an example to work from.

Ofcourse there is an alternative. Use the flavour of the wizard as provided by the PH.

You are dealing with extremes. Is everything about your characters either "of utmost importance to the character build and concept" or "so inconsequential that I need not put it on my sheet"? There is a medium setting, you know. You seem to be hell bent on dancing around it.

Yes. There is a reason you either do a course or don't at uni. You could do the first year of 4 courses, but that is not recomended.

If you really want to have a couple of ranks in perform for your non-bard class, you can, but I'm having a hard time imagining such a character concept.

That's not what I asked.

The roll is either important or it isn't. If it isn't important it doesn't matter, if it someone else can do it.

Hallavast

2010-02-15, 11:44 PM

Yes. There is a reason you either do a course or don't at uni. You could do the first year of 4 courses, but that is not recomended.

If you really want to have a couple of ranks in perform for your non-bard class, you can, but I'm having a hard time imagining such a character concept.

The roll is either important or it isn't. If it isn't important it doesn't matter, if it someone else can do it.

I dissagree. I've spelled out why in the last few posts, but you don't seem interested in that perspective. You seem to only want to deal in extremes, and all I have to offer is moderation.

Boci

2010-02-15, 11:51 PM

I dissagree. I've spelled out why in the last few posts, but you don't seem interested in that perspective. You seem to only want to deal in extremes, and all I have to offer is moderation.

So then show me a character concept that cannot do with basic or excellent performing skills, but must instead have only moderate ones.

All you've done so far is raise potential problems to my methods. Someone reading this thread will have learnt from me that it is possible to include hobby's for your character without using skill ranks or feats (assuming they did not know this already). What will they have learnt from you?

Hallavast

2010-02-16, 12:00 AM

So then show me a character concept that cannot do with basic or excellent performing skills, but must instead have only moderate ones. That would take a little while. I won't attempt it unless I know you are open to moderation when you see it.

All you've done so far is raise potential problems to my methods. Someone reading this thread will have learnt from me that it is possible to include hobby's for your character without using skill ranks or feats (assuming they did not know this already). What will they have learnt from you?

That it is possible to include skills and abilities that are more than hobbies and less than defining features of being to a character using the rules.

Boci

2010-02-16, 12:05 AM

That would take a little while. I won't attempt it unless I know you are open to moderation when you see it.

Well that seems like a catche 22, since I won't know until I see it.

That it is possible to include skills and abilities that are more than hobbies and less than defining features of being to a character using the rules.

But do you really need them to be in between? And even then there are optimal ways of doing it, such as taking a level dip into the binder and binding Naberius, ect.

Hallavast

2010-02-16, 12:11 AM

Well that seems like a catche 22, since I won't know until I see it.
I'm not going to try to make something that you are biased against before you see it.

But do you really need them to be in between?

You might in some situations. But do you really need to divorce mechanics from fluff?

Boci

2010-02-16, 12:15 AM

I'm not going to try to make something that you are biased against before you see it.

I'm not biased against it, I'm just saying I cannot promise to agree with it beofre seeing it.

You might in some situations.

But even then there are optimal ways of doing it, such as taking a level dip into the binder and binding Naberius, ect.

But do you really need to divorce mechanics from fluff?

Yes because it gives you the greatest freedom, and increases the probability that each character you create will contain elements of your own creation.

Hallavast

2010-02-16, 12:39 AM

I'm not biased against it, I'm just saying I cannot promise to agree with it beofre seeing it.
I'll take your word for it, but I would remain skeptical of this if I didn't have your honest reassurance.

But even then there are optimal ways of doing it, such as taking a level dip into the binder and binding Naberius, ect.

This is incidental at best, because you can't count on having access to splatbooks, and even if you could, level dipping isn't always optimal. As a further complication you have to remove the fluff from binding spirits. But I'm not trying to nitpick. There is probably a better way to do it.

Then there is the problem of games besides D&D with more emphasis on the relationship between fluff and crunch.

Yes because it gives you the greatest freedom, and increases the probability that each character you create will contain elements of your own creation.

True that it has value in that regard. But you run into unnecessary problems when you're trying to explicitly simulate the story through the dice. This won't be a problem in all games, but with some groups it is important. While it might seem intuitive to say "duh, if you want a relationship between the two, then it only follows to have one". But remember, the connection is there by default. It is easier to sell to a DM or a group.

Hallavast

2010-02-16, 01:34 AM

Here's the character concept(s):

NPC: "Molly" Lvl 3 human expert

Molly is the owner and operator of a roadside inn. Before her grandmother died she travelled the kingdom as part of a musical troupe. Now she spends most of her time keeping her inn in working order and has little time to practice her singing.

Skills include 4 ranks in perform, 6 ranks in craft (carpentry), 6 ranks in profession (inkeep), 6 ranks in sense motive, 6 ranks in diplomacy, 6 ranks in bluff, 2 ranks in Knowledge (local).

In addition to her singing, Molly is good with a hammer and nails, knows the ins and outs of running her business with exceptional efficiency, knows how to read people and set them at ease, can play cards with the straightest face, and has picked up tidbits from the surrounding area.

PC: "Sam" Lvl 5 Dwarf fighter

Sam has always had a passion for music. Since childhood he sang in local choirs and on street corners for money. Sam's parents, however, didn't appreciate his gift and tried to foist a different life upon him when he came of age. Not wanting this life, Sam joined up with a wandering Bard and left his parents' hometown. The bard taught him the finer points of singing and coached him with his vocal talents. Sam excelled at his singing. Eventually, however, Sam and the bard ran afoul of bandits, and the bard was slain. Vowing revenge, Sam began training with the sword, and found he was adept at fighting as well. Not suited to bard magic, and knowing little of lore, Sam decided to pursue his skill with the sword. Over time he learned the tricks of his trade and eventually joined an adventuring party. He enjoyed the looks on people's faces in human lands when he displayed his singing talent, and he resolved to keep up with his voice excercises.

Sam is a lvl 5 Greatsword charger. His skills include 4 cross class ranks in Perform along with more typical fighter skills.

Scene: With the rest of the party in tow, Sam went about tracking down the bandits that killed his former mentor. After an ill fated attempt at fording the river and severe weather, the party was falling on hard times. They had all just bought new equipment and supplies and were eager to save coin where they could. Eventually, they came upon Molly's inn. After much haggling over the price of dinner and room at the inn, Sam offers to sing for their supper. Molly laughs at the idea of a singing dwarf and says that if he can out sing her, she would be more than happy to give the party a free meal and a discount on their rooms. If Molly won the contest, however, the adventurers would pay full price for her most expensive suite. The party considers her offer knowing that if Sam fails, they won't be able to pay. After consideration, Sam convinces them to take the risk.

The scene seems a bit contrived from an outside perspective, but in situations like these, one or more players has probably set up this scene with the DM to some degree. The DM doesn't want to autofail or autopass the challenge, so he has Molly and Sam roll perform checks against the other inn patrons. The higher result will determine the winner.

Ozymandias9

2010-02-16, 01:50 AM

pres_man

2010-02-16, 01:54 AM

If your character hasn't been adventuring near constantly in that time, there is little effort in justifying it.

And if you have?

Hallavast

2010-02-16, 02:16 AM

And if you have?

No rest? No breaking for lunch? No travelling? Besides, have you ever gone up a level without using one of your max ranks skills? I'll bet you have. And if not, what if you do? Does that mean you shouldn't level up that skill for that level? Eventually your character will find time to do these things.

Ozymandias9

2010-02-16, 02:45 AM

And if you have?

Then it may not be the best time to justify taking certain non-combat skills. Certain ones, but not all. There is still the option of something like preform if they play an instrument at night. Some things can be justified through travel time. It depends how you're roll played their interest in the skill up to that time.

Regardless, the underlying point still stands: if your character has a strong interest in something non-combat related, why would they suddenly drop that interest when they start adventuring? Especially if it doesn't cause significant hardship. If the party rogue fancies themselves a naturalist, why couldn't they pick up some books on the subject whenever they're in town and work on their Knowledge:Nature skill as they read themselves to sleep.

Tyndmyr

2010-02-16, 09:03 AM

John practices his lute at the camp each night? Ellea has the elf in the party teach her Elvish while they travel? Heck, if you are using a urban setting, you can have characters pursue a lot of things between encounters.

Moreover, advancing a level is represents your self-improvement since last advancing a level. If your character hasn't been adventuring near constantly in that time, there is little effort in justifying it.

What happens when you have leveling without more than a brief between-encounters break, back to back? I've had this happen, as sometimes, parties get stuck in extremely bad situations that require quite a string of encounters to get out of.

I suspect that trying to tie each point of skill to roleplaying is needlessly specific, and, like levels, is probably abstracted for the sake of convenience, and shouldn't be held to a close level of detail. Sure, you should roleplay your skills at some point...but don't worry about getting in every skill you want to upgrade next level before it happens.

Lycar

2010-02-16, 02:35 PM

Because people seem to be incapable of accepting "can play basic tunes on harp" as a character trait no different from "suspicious" or "has red hair".

That all I wanted. "Yes, your character can contribute to the social interaction even though he has no ranks in diplomacy."

Well? Which one is it going to be? Let us put aside that someone 'silver tongued' ough to be better at persuading people then someone who is not 'silver tongued'. After all, this could simply represent someone who's Perfom/Diplomacy benefits from a positive CHA mod. Although then you better have a positive CAH mod to begin with. :smallannoyed:

But the point is: If you complain about being useless in a social encounter without having ranks in Diplomac, you have no ground to argue that someone without ranks in Perform ought to be able to impress people 'because his backstory says he can.

And besides, you always can contribute, even without a single rank in the skill. Making people grant you a reasonable request is about a DC 15 check. 25% chance every time.

And even if your character is not the one doing the actual talking, you can still contribute. It is called "Combining Skill Attempts", see PHB p. 65 under "Aid Another". A flat DC 10 to helpout your buddy.

That is 'contributing'. But is all your character is capable of if he has no actual ranks.

The way I see it people seem confused by my aproach that your character can have traits that aren't backed up by something on their character sheet.

Heh, you can have all traits you want. The moment you try to impose on something that already has written rules about it, you are plain out of luck.

I'm talking about flavour, the rules have no place here. The fact that my fighter has a harp and sometimes plays a tune on it is flavour, so the rules and the interpretation of them have no place in the equation.
Oh but they have: The very moment you expect your fighter's harp playing to be anything more but an amateur's pasttime, you need to invest into actual ranks.

Remember: According to RAW, making a DC 10 Perform check is basically begging. Nobody stops you from rolling to hit that DC 15 for an 'Enjoyable Performance'. Good luck, it's the same 25% chance to pull off that simple untrained Diplomacy check. Although, to be fair, if you play for your friends you ought to have a +2 circumstance modifier for a 'friendly audience'.

When did I ever say he can do something useful with it?
Well? Right here of course:

That all I wanted. "Yes, your character can contribute to the social interaction even though he has no ranks in diplomacy."

No, but spending points on perform and then complaining that sometimes you need to sacrifice to rp is like throwing money away and then complaining how broke you are.
A roleplayer will gladly accept the price and not complain. If you want to be good at something, you have to invest into it. This will be missing at other points. But such is life for you: You do not get something for nothing.

I am not changing any rule. Just like saying that a wizard casts spells by praying to their god changes no rules.
Oh but you are very very wrong here: I don't want to be the resident RAWtard but by definition, the very moment you change but one word from the RAW, you are houseruling it. Because the PHB mentions how arcane and divine spells work. You change how they work, you houserule it.

There is nothing wrong with houseruling, I think everybody here agrees that the game needs a lot of houserules to work comfortably.

But houseruling and then denying to acknowledge that you are doing it is simply deluding yourself. That is a bad idea.

Talk and play. He impresses the audience as much as another party member without ranks could by telling a story.

Precisely. And less so then a character who has actual ranks. Or just a higher CHA mod for that matter.

As others already mentioned, it is two schools of thought behind all this:

A) Player skill is what matters.
B) Character skill is what matters.

In the earlier D&D editions, a lot of stuff was dependent on player skill. Want to find the trap/secret door/hidden compartment? Tell your GM where you are looking and how you are looking. If you hit the right spot, you find something. In the case of a trap, you rather want your 10-foor pole to 'find' it though.

Nowadays we have Search and Disable Device skills. The allow players without vivid imaginations to be good at finding stuff and disarming traps without triggering them themselves.

However, you better agree with your fellow players which one of those doctrines you will follow at your table.

If it is B), you better invest ranks in anything you want your character to better at then a mere amateur.

If it is A), well, you better be as good at telling a story as your bard character is supposed to be... Oh and the bard player has the full right to not spend any ranks at Perform/Oratory at all, since they don't matter.

Or wait, what was that about false dychtonomies? Is this really only a binary choice? But of course not, this is Real Life (TM) and not a CRPG.

I present you: Option C) Players act out their social interactions. The DM, however, takes character skills into account when adjucating the effects.

Wait, it gets better, how about: Option D) Players can opt to act out the interaction. The DM applies modifiers to the skill roll according to how good or bad he thinks the player acted. Gives gifted players a chance to 'ham it up a bit' and giving an incentive for it without unduely disadvantaging shy players.

And again, this is not a multiple choice test. There are many ways to handle things that fall somewhere between these points. You could use those options to adjucate craft checks: "So, how are you going about building that bridge across the chasm in the cave then?"

And even combat can be ad-libbed easily:
P: "Crap, I can't quite reach the ogre with my charge... just 5 more feet. Hrm.. look, can't I just make a lunge and try to hit it anyway?
P2:"There is a feat for that. I don't think you have that, so... bad luck."
GM:"Bah, go for it. Just make your attack at -4. Oh and you'll be flat-footed until your next turn. Because you overextend yourself. Hm... we should make a houserule for that..."

There. Houserules saved the day. :smallamused:

Lycar

Boci

2010-02-16, 04:25 PM

PC: "Sam" Lvl 5 Dwarf fighter

Sam has always had a passion for music. Since childhood he sang in local choirs and on street corners for money. Sam's parents, however, didn't appreciate his gift and tried to foist a different life upon him when he came of age. Not wanting this life, Sam joined up with a wandering Bard and left his parents' hometown. The bard taught him the finer points of singing and coached him with his vocal talents. Sam excelled at his singing. Eventually, however, Sam and the bard ran afoul of bandits, and the bard was slain. Vowing revenge, Sam began training with the sword, and found he was adept at fighting as well. Not suited to bard magic, and knowing little of lore, Sam decided to pursue his skill with the sword. Over time he learned the tricks of his trade and eventually joined an adventuring party. He enjoyed the looks on people's faces in human lands when he displayed his singing talent, and he resolved to keep up with his voice excercises.

Sam is a lvl 5 Greatsword charger. His skills include 4 cross class ranks in Perform along with more typical fighter skills.

Scene: With the rest of the party in tow, Sam went about tracking down the bandits that killed his former mentor. After an ill fated attempt at fording the river and severe weather, the party was falling on hard times. They had all just bought new equipment and supplies and were eager to save coin where they could. Eventually, they came upon Molly's inn. After much haggling over the price of dinner and room at the inn, Sam offers to sing for their supper. Molly laughs at the idea of a singing dwarf and says that if he can out sing her, she would be more than happy to give the party a free meal and a discount on their rooms. If Molly won the contest, however, the adventurers would pay full price for her most expensive suite. The party considers her offer knowing that if Sam fails, they won't be able to pay. After consideration, Sam convinces them to take the risk.

The scene seems a bit contrived from an outside perspective, but in situations like these, one or more players has probably set up this scene with the DM to some degree. The DM doesn't want to autofail or autopass the challenge, so he has Molly and Sam roll perform checks against the other inn patrons. The higher result will determine the winner.

Ultimatly this sounds okay, and I would not object to Sam's character concept at all (well, I may recommend he retrain as a warblade, but nothing else).

He's a charger, and being a 5th level non-human fighter he will have 5 feats. Assuming he is optomizing, amougst them will probably be leap attack (and shock trooper) at level 6, so he will need 9 ranks in jump by then. Let's assume he has an inteligence of 12. That means he has a total of 24 skill points, or 16 after the perform ranks. He maxes out jump at 8 ranks, and has 8 skill points left to spend on what he pleases. Even in low point buy with just 10 inteligence, he can still have maxed out ranks in perform and jump.

The party considers her offer knowing that if Sam fails, they won't be able to pay.

I'm not going to say this one point invalidates your whole post, but if a 5th level party is struggling to pay for lodging, how can they afford to have the magical equipment neccissary to stay on top of CR: 5 enemies unless they have all taken VoP.

Hallavast

2010-02-16, 04:33 PM

I'm not going to say this one point invalidates your whole post, but if a 5th level party is struggling to pay for lodging, how can they afford to have the magical equipment neccissary to stay on top of CR: 5 enemies unless they have all taken VoP.

Yeah. It's a little circumstantial. Molly's suite may be extravagant, and if the price isn't confirmed beforehand, she basically charges whatever she wants. This could add up to a couple hundred gp for 6 people. Perhaps they've just spent most of their gold, and they wouldn't have quite enough without trading a weapon or scroll.

It's not the only way to solve the problem (they could probably kill everyone in the inn if they wanted to). It's just one way that appeals to Sam's idea of his character.

Boci

2010-02-16, 04:38 PM

And even if your character is not the one doing the actual talking, you can still contribute. It is called "Combining Skill Attempts", see PHB p. 65 under "Aid Another". A flat DC 10 to helpout your buddy.

That is 'contributing'. But is all your character is capable of if he has no actual ranks.

Good, then we agree. You do not need ranks in diplomacy to contribute to a social interaction. Thanks for reminding me about the aid another.

Let us put aside that someone 'silver tongued' ough to be better at persuading people then someone who is not 'silver tongued'.

I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Someone who is silver tongued and arragant, or who grovels pathetically may very well be less persuasive than than someone who is not silver tongued.

Oh but they have: The very moment you expect your fighter's harp playing to be anything more but an amateur's pasttime, you need to invest into actual ranks.

And the six times I've pointed out that I count on no such thing are not enough because...?

A roleplayer will gladly accept the price and not complain. If you want to be good at something, you have to invest into it. This will be missing at other points. But such is life for you: You do not get something for nothing.

So we've graduated from stating the bleeding obvious to repeating the bleeding obvious? You sure know some cool games.

Oh but you are very very wrong here: I don't want to be the resident RAWtard but by definition, the very moment you change but one word from the RAW, you are houseruling it. Because the PHB mentions how arcane and divine spells work. You change how they work, you houserule it.

There is nothing wrong with houseruling, I think everybody here agrees that the game needs a lot of houserules to work comfortably.

But houseruling and then denying to acknowledge that you are doing it is simply deluding yourself. That is a bad idea.

Maybe you are right technically, quite frankly I do not care if you are. The point is, whether its officially a houserule or not, changing flavour whilst leaving the mechanics unaltered is not what people imagine when they hear the term "house rule".

Precisely. And less so then a character who has actual ranks. Or just a higher CHA mod for that matter.

Wait, you highlight the statement where I acknowledge that such traits confer no mechanical benefit, yet continue to accuse me of trying to gain something for nothing? Well, guilty as charged. I'm trying to gain a flavourful character without losing anything.

And even combat can be ad-libbed easily:
P: "Crap, I can't quite reach the ogre with my charge... just 5 more feet. Hrm.. look, can't I just make a lunge and try to hit it anyway?
P2:"There is a feat for that. I don't think you have that, so... bad luck."
GM:"Bah, go for it. Just make your attack at -4. Oh and you'll be flat-footed until your next turn. Because you overextend yourself. Hm... we should make a houserule for that..."

True, but combat doesn't really need rule 0 because there is already so many rules covering it. Social interaction does, since there is not even a page on it in the PH.

Yeah. It's a little circumstantial. Molly's suite may be extravagant, and if the price isn't confirmed beforehand, she basically charges whatever she wants. This could add up to a couple hundred gp for 6 people. Perhaps they've just spent most of their gold, and they wouldn't have quite enough without trading a weapon or scroll.

It's not the only way to solve the problem (they could probably kill everyone in the inn if they wanted to). It's just one way that appeals to Sam's idea of his character.

Fair enough. I would not say based on that Sam isn't optimized, just that he isn't powergaming. If he takes shocktrooper and co then its fine. Sure, the ranks spent on perform could be better used to make sure he is not shut down 45% of the time by a first level spell, but you can just help you DM doesn't use greace.

Ozymandias9

2010-02-17, 01:13 AM

What happens when you have leveling without more than a brief between-encounters break, back to back? I've had this happen, as sometimes, parties get stuck in extremely bad situations that require quite a string of encounters to get out of.

I suspect that trying to tie each point of skill to roleplaying is needlessly specific, and, like levels, is probably abstracted for the sake of convenience, and shouldn't be held to a close level of detail. Sure, you should roleplay your skills at some point...but don't worry about getting in every skill you want to upgrade next level before it happens.

I would agree with the point about needless specificity. Even in my most bookkeeping and role-playing heavy heavy tables, that would be over the top. I'm not arguing for that extreme. But if I've established that lute-playing is nearly as important to my cleric as his ecclesiastical knowledge, keeping Preform:Lute and Knowledge:Religion close in ranks is a reasonable way to express that.

Something may come up where keeping them equal stretches verisimilitude: his instrument may be broken. They may level 4 times in 1 day. Depending on how much that would break verisimilitude for the table, I might not do the investment in Preform at that time. But there's still no reason my "adventurer" can't put a fair deal of time and effort into something not particularly useful for "adventuring."

Lycar

2010-02-17, 03:27 PM

Good, then we agree. You do not need ranks in diplomacy to contribute to a social interaction. Thanks for reminding me about the aid another.
Heh, so your reason for being upset about 'being useless without ranks in Diplomacy' was not being aware of the 'Aid Another' rule? Well, that would explain a lot.

Quite frankly, you came off as someone who wasn't satisfied with that and wanted more without willing to sacrifice 'built power' in the form of skills points. That got you a few accusations of munkinry. :smallamused:

I find your lack of imagination disturbing. Someone who is silver tongued and arragant, or who grovels pathetically may very well be less persuasive than than someone who is not silver tongued.
Hrmph, if your definition of 'silver tongued (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/silver-tongued)' merely rests on being eloquent and then ruining everything by being a total jerk, then yes. But usually 'silver tongued' means that someone is persuasive by having 'a clever way with words'.

And the six times I've pointed out that I count on no such thing are not enough because...?
Because we were still working under the assumption that, no, that is not enough for you. Because it apparently wasn't good enough for you with Diplomacy. :smallamused:

Maybe you are right technically, quite frankly I do not care if you are. The point is, whether its officially a houserule or not, changing flavour whilst leaving the mechanics unaltered is not what people imagine when they hear the term "house rule".
And yet, a non-evil assassin is as much house-ruled, even if you change but one sentence in the entire class description.

That is what many people ignore: Technically, even the fluff associated with the crunch is RAW. If ignoring the fluff leads to a better gaming experience, go for it. You just better hope that everybody at the table is on the same page here.

See above for what happens when fluff-lovers and fluff-haters clash...

True, but combat doesn't really need rule 0 because there is already so many rules covering it. Social interaction does, since there is not even a page on it in the PH.
Wait what? The rules for Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Intimidate, Perform, Sense Motive and, to a small degree, even Forgery do not have anything to do with social interaction? I strongly suggest you re-read those rules. :smallannoyed:

Sure, the ranks spent on perform could be better used to make sure he is not shut down 45% of the time by a first level spell, but you can just help you DM doesn't use greace.
What are you talking about? Balance? That doesn't kick in before lv. 7. The earliest when you can attain 5 ranks in a cross class skill.

Seriously, if you need skills, multiclass rogue. That what he is there for. And if you don't want Sneak Attack, there is the Feat Rogue variant. There, the deal got even better.

(And don't mention Factotums. Their only purpose in life seems to be to make Rogues useless. :smallconfused:)

Lycar

Sliver

2010-02-17, 03:42 PM

I follow the thread here and there, and can't really know if this one goes back but still..

And yet, a non-evil assassin is as much house-ruled, even if you change but one sentence in the entire class description.

That is what many people ignore: Technically, even the fluff associated with the crunch is RAW. If ignoring the fluff leads to a better gaming experience, go for it. You just better hope that everybody at the table is on the same page here.

Alignments aren't fluff, they have plenty of in game mechanics related to them. I don't recall people hand waving these restrictions as not being house rules, but it not just fluff.. Ignoring alignments completely needs some addressing (spells, abilities and other stuff) but the restriction is waved when people see it as a pointless restriction..

Boci

2010-02-17, 04:34 PM

Heh, so your reason for being upset about 'being useless without ranks in Diplomacy' was not being aware of the 'Aid Another' rule? Well, that would explain a lot.

I knew there was a rule somewhere thabut I had a mental block on it.

Quite frankly, you came off as someone who wasn't satisfied with that and wanted more without willing to sacrifice 'built power' in the form of skills points. That got you a few accusations of munkinry. :smallamused:

Yes and that has since been cleared up: all of you were wrong for assuming I was trying to gain something for nothing. (Although the fact multiple users made that mistake shows I was probably unclear).

Hrmph, if your definition of 'silver tongued (http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/silver-tongued)' merely rests on being eloquent and then ruining everything by being a total jerk, then yes. But usually 'silver tongued' means that someone is persuasive by having 'a clever way with words'.

So someone has a very clever way with words and is arrogant. How do those two traits conflict?

Because we were still working under the assumption that, no, that is not enough for you. Because it apparently wasn't good enough for you with Diplomacy. :smallamused:

I said a DM who limited your characters ability to contribute to a social interaction on the number of ranks of diplomacy you had was failing at his job. Although being unimaginative is probably a better way of putting it.

And yet, a non-evil assassin is as much house-ruled, even if you change but one sentence in the entire class description.[/QUOTE]

Aligment is not fluff. Point dies.

That is what many people ignore: Technically, even the fluff associated with the crunch is RAW. If ignoring the fluff leads to a better gaming experience, go for it.

Allow me to repeat: Changing fluff and leaving the mechanics untouched is not what people think of when they hear "house rule", even if it is one technically. For example, I doubt you would call a DM saying you cannot stake standard actions once your HP drops below -10 as a houserule, but technically it is one.

You just better hope that everybody at the table is on the same page here.

Why do I need the permission of others to reflavour my character?

Wait what? The rules for Diplomacy, Disguise, Gather Information, Intimidate, Perform, Sense Motive and, to a small degree, even Forgery do not have anything to do with social interaction? I strongly suggest you re-read those rules. :smallannoyed:

My point was there are far more rules that cover combat than social interaction.

What are you talking about? Balance? That doesn't kick in before lv. 7. The earliest when you can attain 5 ranks in a cross class skill.

So he could be working towards that.

(And don't mention Factotums. Their only purpose in life seems to be to make Rogues useless. :smallconfused:)

Or make a skill monkey who wasn't such a glass cannon.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-17, 04:37 PM

And yet, a non-evil assassin is as much house-ruled, even if you change but one sentence in the entire class description.

That is what many people ignore: Technically, even the fluff associated with the crunch is RAW. If ignoring the fluff leads to a better gaming experience, go for it. You just better hope that everybody at the table is on the same page here.

See above for what happens when fluff-lovers and fluff-haters clash...
Lycar
What is your definition of fluff?

Fluff is normally described as how you describe stuff. So none of that above is fluff.

Alignment is a mechanical function (otherwise Pallys wouldn't fall)

Riffington

2010-02-17, 04:43 PM

Why do I need the permission of others to reflavour my character?

Because they're creating a world with you?
If you say you hail from the great plains to the West, and the campaign assumes that to the West of you is forested coastland, one or both of you need to rewrite something. That changes the game way more than some mere bit of "crunch".

Boci

2010-02-17, 04:47 PM

Because they're creating a world with you?
If you say you hail from the great plains to the West, and the campaign assumes that to the West of you is forested coastland, one or both of you need to rewrite something. That changes the game way more than some mere bit of "crunch".

No, it means that if you travel West for long enough, you will eventually run into the great plains. Besides, this thread has focused more a characters abilities, and that it was in that context that I asked that question.

Riffington

2010-02-17, 04:58 PM

No, it means that if you travel West for long enough, you will eventually run into the great plains. Besides, this thread has focused more a characters abilities, and that it was in that context that I asked that question.

Look, the geography of the game may be entirely up to the DM or may be a shared responsibility, but the point is that a player can't say "oh, I can just change it willy-nilly".
The same goes with abilities. If the only people who have wildshape are those who revere nature (and blighters who've rejected it), that affects the way the world is set up. Kings who want eagle spies may need to adjust their environmental policies accordingly. Wildshape spell-less Ranger with intact flavor might be fine. But if you allow such a "package" to represent a group of warriors who train hard and have learned to unlock genetic secrets without caring one way or the other about nature... you may be completely changing the political landscape. Depending on your specific campaign, any bit of "fluff" may be irrelevant, cool, stereotypical, or game-breaking.

Boci

2010-02-17, 05:03 PM

Look, the geography of the game may be entirely up to the DM or may be a shared responsibility, but the point is that a player can't say "oh, I can just change it willy-nilly".

Obviously in that case the player can just cross west out and replace it with something else. Or it can be assumed that the plains are far away and will never actually be seen in the game.

The same goes with abilities. If the only people who have wildshape are those who revere nature (and blighters who've rejected it), that affects the way the world is set up. Kings who want eagle spies may need to adjust their environmental policies accordingly. Wildshape spell-less Ranger with intact flavor might be fine. But if you allow such a "package" to represent a group of warriors who train hard and have learned to unlock genetic secrets without caring one way or the other about nature... you may be completely changing the political landscape. Depending on your specific campaign, any bit of "fluff" may be irrelevant, cool, stereotypical, or game-breaking.

1. Why are you using plurals? I am reflavouring my character.
2. Obviously I will reflavour my character with the game's setting in mind. As long as I do that, how will it ever be game breaking?

Starbuck_II

2010-02-17, 05:10 PM

Look, the geography of the game may be entirely up to the DM or may be a shared responsibility, but the point is that a player can't say "oh, I can just change it willy-nilly".
The same goes with abilities. If the only people who have wildshape are those who revere nature (and blighters who've rejected it), that affects the way the world is set up. Kings who want eagle spies may need to adjust their environmental policies accordingly. Wildshape spell-less Ranger with intact flavor might be fine. But if you allow such a "package" to represent a group of warriors who train hard and have learned to unlock genetic secrets without caring one way or the other about nature... you may be completely changing the political landscape. Depending on your specific campaign, any bit of "fluff" may be irrelevant, cool, stereotypical, or game-breaking.

One would assume the DM should tell you these important details. If not, his fault.

Riffington

2010-02-17, 05:23 PM

One would assume the DM should tell you these important details. If not, his fault.

I may be missing your point.

1. Why are you using plurals? I am reflavouring my character.
2. Obviously I will reflavour my character with the game's setting in mind. As long as I do that, how will it ever be game breaking?

1. Because I am speaking in the abstract? I don't know your DM, so I can't tell you how not to flavor your character. All I know is that Geography is usually important. And so is the fluff for different PrCs. It may be the case that a Loremaster is any wizard who cares about knowledge. Or it may be the case that Loremasters must join a specific organization to gain certain secrets, and the organization in question is dedicated to the destruction of the Sevenfold Veils. I don't know, so I can't tell you if you can have both PrCs in the same character without having a price on your head.

2. It's game-breaking if you make it game breaking. It isn't if you don't. If you say "And then I married Pelor's father, and divorced him three days later", it kinda makes a big ruckus in some campaigns (not in every single one). I can't say what fluff is and isn't in your specific campaign. All I can say is that in most campaigns, there exists fluff that is much more important than most of the crunch/rules.

Boci

2010-02-17, 05:30 PM

I may be missing your point.

The DM needs to tell the players about any major fluff changes in his world if they are to respect it.

1. Because I am speaking in the abstract? I don't know your DM, so I can't tell you how not to flavor your character. All I know is that Geography is usually important. And so is the fluff for different PrCs. It may be the case that a Loremaster is any wizard who cares about knowledge. Or it may be the case that Loremasters must join a specific organization to gain certain secrets, and the organization in question is dedicated to the destruction of the Sevenfold Veils. I don't know, so I can't tell you if you can have both PrCs in the same character without having a price on your head.

How will it break the game is your character is an exception to what normally happens?

2. It's game-breaking if you make it game breaking. It isn't if you don't. If you say "And then I married Pelor's father, and divorced him three days later", it kinda makes a big ruckus in some campaigns (not in every single one). I can't say what fluff is and isn't in your specific campaign. All I can say is that in most campaigns, there exists fluff that is much more important than most of the crunch/rules.

As I said, as long as you respect this, how will it be game breaking?

Riffington

2010-02-17, 05:42 PM

The DM needs to tell the players about any major fluff changes in his world if they are to respect it.
Yes. Clearly. Not just "changes": there is no D&D book out there that spells out a world well enough to start playing. Every D&D campaign has to start by describing the atmosphere.

How will it break the game is your character is an exception to what normally happens?
It may or may not. You might have a buffy-like game, where everyone is a unique snowflake and you roll with the cheesiness because it's so much fun. Or you might have a game where actions have more consequences: if you are on the lam, that has major implications for the entire group. Or your combination of abilities and flavor may ruin the entire dynamic, just by the fact that you are willing to do things that other people with your abilities aren't or are not subject to the same prejudice that other people with your abilities are.

As I said, as long as you respect this, how will it be game breaking?

There's hundreds of ways it could be game breaking or could not be. Do you just want me to list different possibilities? Surely you can think of a dozen without breaking a sweat.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-17, 05:46 PM

It may or may not. You might have a buffy-like game, where everyone is a unique snowflake and you roll with the cheesiness because it's so much fun. Or you might have a game where actions have more consequences: if you are on the lam, that has major implications for the entire group. Or your combination of abilities and flavor may ruin the entire dynamic, just by the fact that you are willing to do things that other people with your abilities aren't or are not subject to the same prejudice that other people with your abilities are.

Clearly, we were watching different episodes of Buffy. Xander is badass normal not a unique snowflake. Cordelia to a lesser degree till a kiss gives her abiluty to see future.

Riffington

2010-02-17, 05:48 PM

Clearly, we were watching different episodes of Buffy. Xander is badass normal not a unique snowflake. Cordelia to a lesser degree till a kiss gives her abiluty to see future.

Cordelia becomes a deity.
Xander "remembers" army training that he never even had.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-17, 05:49 PM

That wasn't her; that was a demon that possessed her.

Boci

2010-02-17, 05:50 PM

There's hundreds of ways it could be game breaking or could not be. Do you just want me to list different possibilities? Surely you can think of a dozen without breaking a sweat.

Meh, I'm not really concerned by some apocalyptic worse case scenarios made without any specific game in mind. If the DM has problems with my refluffing, he could always talk to me about it.

Riffington

2010-02-17, 05:56 PM

Meh, I'm not really concerned by some apocalyptic worse case scenarios made without any specific game in mind. If the DM has problems with my refluffing, he could always talk to me about it.

Right, precisely this.
You and the DM need to figure out what is and isn't appropriate for your specific game. The exact same thing goes for changes in crunch. If you want a different skill list or a free feat or an item you don't normally qualify to use, it probably won't break the game. You and the DM talk about that the exact same way as you talk about the way your character fits into the campaign's fluff (except that the crunchy bits shouldn't require as long of a conversation)

Lycar

2010-02-17, 06:12 PM

(Although the fact multiple users made that mistake shows I was probably unclear).
Yes, probably. :smallwink:

So someone has a very clever way with words and is arrogant. How do those two traits conflict?
Meh, just a matter what you define as being 'silver tongued'. It just means eloquent, and a an eloquent jerk will still have a hard time making people see things his way because, well, jerk.

So yeah, you can use the 'jerk' trait to counterbalance the 'silver-tongued' trait, for a net effect of a character who is not better at diplomatizing people then someone who is neither.

But since having an eloquent character carries the notion of being good at diplomatizing, you run into conflicts if his actual mechanical abilites to do so are not there. But yes, having a negative trait to counterbalance the positive one works.

This actually gives a lot of character over the more generic 'neither eloquent or a jerk' personality. But in a rules-heavy game as D&D you have to be aware of the mechanical implications of such traits, otherwise you get discussions such as this. :smallconfused:

I said a DM who limited your characters ability to contribute to a social interaction on the number of ranks of diplomacy you had was failing at his job. Although being unimaginative is probably a better way of putting it.
Uhm... but quite the contrary: If the DM makes it clear that your 0 Diplomacy character will probably not out-talk the queens courtier, who somehow doesn't like you and tries to influence the queen toward dismissing your claims/arguments/requests/whatever, because this guy does have ranks in Diplomacy, is doing the same thing as the DM who tells you that you need to roll a 18 or higher to hit, because your character has a low BAB and no STR bonus.

Telling you how mechanics affect the game is the DM's job. How you play out those mechanic affects is the roleplaying part.

In your example, the eloquent but jerkass character could have a hard time getting on the queens good side because he makes it clear that he feels entitled to a favour from the queen (the jerk part). This, naturally, does not go over well with the queen and she is therefore less then impressed with his arguments, no matter how well he words them.

Your charcater is therefore limited to making a small contribution to the negotiations. The bard on the other hand, who takes a lot more humble approach and asks for a small favour, since the queen is, after all, known far and wide for being just and generous to those who have served her well, which he sincerly hopes the parties actions should have demonstrated, but of course it is her perogative to judge that, will have a much easier time winning her over.

Because he gets those 5 ranks and +3 CHA mod to add to his roll.

That would be two players playing out their respective relative diplomatic skills: The jerk ruins his efforts because he lacks the tact not to annoy the queen, th bard, because of his diplomatic training, knows the best way to approach a social superior.

So you have to make up your mind: If you can accept that not having put ranks in Diplomacy will make your character poor at convincing people to see things his way, then you can fluff your character all you want, as long as the net result is in accordance to his actual mechanical abilities. And as long as you don not 'conveniently forget' about the jerk part. But I dare say, this should go without saying, yes?

Having an eloquent jerk works. Having an 'eloquent' character, who can't back that claim up mechanically, either by CHA bonus or actual skill ranks, breaks versimilitude.

Such are the perils of a rules-heavy system like D&D.

Aligment is not fluff. Point dies.

Alignment is a mechanical function (otherwise Pallys wouldn't fall)
What he said. Point stands.

Also, there was a thread once about non-evil assassins.

'Alignement is silly, it is mere fluff (mechanical apllications be damned) and therefore irrelevant. Change at my your leisure.' Was about the favourite argument of the pro-non-evil-assassin camp.

It got ugly. :smallannoyed:

Allow me to repeat: Changing fluff and leaving the mechanics untouched is not what people think of when they hear "house rule", even if it is one technically. For example, I doubt you would call a DM saying you cannot stake standard actions once your HP drops below -10 as a houserule, but technically it is one.
Indeed it is. So is saying that Assassins need not be evil. So is saying you get to roll anything but 1d20+skill ranks+CHA mod to diplomatize people.

But hey, that is not what you are saying, right? You just are unhappy that, in D&D, having an 'silver-tongued' character, who is not also a jerk, takes up precious skill points, right?

Why do I need the permission of others to reflavour my character?
You can flavour your character all you want, as long as you don't run afoul of existing mechanics.

Or, as others have pointed out, if your character concept violates the premises of the campaign setting.

You can't be a dashing fencer if there are no fencing weapons in the setting.
- If you still want to play one, you need to ask the DM about it.

You can't 'kill a sentry in one, swift blow from behind', unless you somehow manage to get enough damage in one attack to put him to negative HP.
- This is even worse about the 'having to back it up mechancally' then the diplomacy thing.

-You can't be an assassin, unless you are also evil.
And if you have fellow players who take alignements seriously (or even, Seriously) you better damn well ask them about it before you declare 'My character is a non-evil assassin!'

You can't be a 'powerful', mage at 1st level, no matter how much your charcater sees himself to be one.
- Unless the guy is also delusional - that works. See 'eloquent jerk'

My point was there are far more rules that cover combat than social interaction.
Then you should have said so. :smallannoyed:

So he could be working towards that.
So then why can't a character who wants to be able to sway people with his words also work towards it? By taking actual ranks in Diplomacy? Even at cross class?

Seriously, what is your point? Either you do take pains to make your character good at something or you don't. But if you fail to put ranks into Diplomacy, you do not get to complain about sucking in social situations. Fluffy characters be damned.

Or make a skill monkey who wasn't such a glass cannon.
Bah, Factotum is to Rogue what the casters are to the melee types (everything you can do, I can do better.. lalalala....) :smallannoyed:

Okay, they aren't so bad when players don't abuse them, but the same goes for casters, so there.

Besides, I don't have the book but aren't Factotums supposed to be members of some adventuring guild or something? I mean, that is what Prestige Classes are supposed to be, not a friggin' Base Class. :smallmad:

Yeah, make Factotum a Prestige Class, preferably for Rogues, then we are talking.

Otherwise, we are right back in Stormwind territory: 'Why take Rogue when Factotum is so much better?' 'Because one is the generic street rat/burglar/spy/etc while the other one is a mamber of a special and elite society?' 'Who cares, fluff is irrelevant...' :smallyuk:

Lycar

Starbuck_II

2010-02-17, 06:20 PM

Indeed it is. So is saying that Assassins need not be evil. So is saying you get to roll anything but 1d20+skill ranks+CHA mod to diplomatize people.

-You can't be an assassin, unless you are also evil.
And if you have fellow players who take alignements seriously (or even, Seriously) you better damn well ask them about it before you declare 'My character is a non-evil assassin!'

Technically, you could be the Avenger: non-evil Assasin web enhancement that they made on the website. Sure, it was created on April Fool's, but it isn't breaking any mechanics to use it.

Besides, I don't have the book but aren't Factotums supposed to be members of some adventuring guild or something? I mean, that is what Prestige Classes are supposed to be, not a friggin' Base Class. :smallmad:

Nope. No adventuring guild requirement even in the fluff. They are the Jack of All Trades without music/singing class feature. They don't even have their own organization: they likely to join other classes Organization (many a Thief's guild has one).

THe Chameleon in Races of Destiny is a human only version of a Prc, but the mechanics are totally different.

Boci

2010-02-17, 06:32 PM

Yes, probably. :smallwink:

Initially yes. After I pointed it out it became your fault. And it has remained your fault the whole time.

Uhm... but quite the contrary: If the DM makes it clear that your 0 Diplomacy character will probably not out-talk the queens courtier

I stopped reading after this because I have already adressed this point earlier (I agree with it completly) and thus once again you are making an argument based on something I never said.

What he said. Point stands.

He's agreeing with me. Aligment is mechanical, not fluff.

But hey, that is not what you are saying, right? You just are unhappy that, in D&D, having an 'silver-tongued' character, who is not also a jerk, takes up precious skill points, right?

No, not at all. I do not know how many times I have said this but it is certainly more than 1.

You can flavour your character all you want, as long as you don't run afoul of existing mechanics.

So we agree.

-You can't be an assassin, unless you are also evil.
And if you have fellow players who take alignements seriously (or even, Seriously) you better damn well ask them about it before you declare 'My character is a non-evil assassin!'

You're the only one on this thread so far who thinks that is purely a flavour change.

So then why can't a character who wants to be able to sway people with his words also work towards it? By taking actual ranks in Diplomacy? Even at cross class?

They can. As I acknowledged with Sam.

Seriously, what is your point? Either you do take pains to make your character good at something or you don't. But if you fail to put ranks into Diplomacy, you do not get to complain about sucking in social situations. Fluffy characters be damned.

I've already said what my point is multiple times. You've quoted it at least twice generally and once specifically.

Otherwise, we are right back in Stormwind territory: 'Why take Rogue when Factotum is so much better?'

Sneak attack, don't want to have magical abilities and cannot use homebred. There are reasons, but factotums are usually better, something I personally do not see as a problem.

Lycar

2010-02-17, 07:50 PM

Initially yes. After I pointed it out it became your fault. And it has remained your fault the whole time.
Let us scroll back a bit, shall we...

No its not. You do not need perform ranks for your character to be able to play a musical instrument. Not everything about your character needs to be backed up by something on their sheet, somethings can be purely fluff.
Okay.

I've already addressed this. If you want to impress an NPC by playing your muscial instrument even though you have no ranks in perform, then do so by making a grand speech about how you came up with the tune during an adventure and then play it. Guess which part influences their attitude.
That one which your character has more ranks in:
Perform (musical instrument) or Perform (oratory/storytelling).

By saying that you can handwave the lack of ranks in Perform because you can always tell a great story about it, you are saying that player skill is more important then character skill. Basically you claim that your own personal skill as a player to spin a good yarn should give you an advantage.

In the rules-heavy game of D&D, this is not so.

How does diplomacy figure in here at all? You can still talk to NPCs even if you do not have ranks in diplomacy.

Other skills though actually have uses. Perform does not. You are either a bard, in which case you must have it, or you are never going to need it. Luckily, the useless skills are also the ones that can be done without actually spending skill ranks.
Yes, you can talk to people. Getting them to act in your favour is still a Diplomacy skill check by RAW.

An if you want to do any more then begging on the streets with your Perform skill, then yes, you do actually need ranks!

No, just plain talk. "Oh fair noble lady, we have slain the dragon that did threaten your realm. I bring you a scale from its body that you be see and always know it cannot harm you. However, the battle was firce and our recovery will be long, yet we have little time to stay, much as that does sadden me. If I may ask, could we recieve an escort to the borders of your land, to aid us whilst our wound heal?"

My character can make that request without diplomacy, and a DM would be a jerk for making it auto-fail just because I have no ranks.
Auto fail? Just stop whining and roll your 1d20+ranks+CHA mod already!

Hit the DC 15 or 20 or whatever and the queen will give you a honour guard.

If you fail, well, she obviously believes that her soldiers have better things to do then to babysit a bunch of murdering hobos who just outlived their usefulness, now that the dragon is dead. What a bitch...

When is perform ever going to influence your character? You may need to climb a cliff, or swim through a river. Unless your a bard, when will you need to perform? Same goes for profession.
+

So the fighter who has lost his weapon and whose only skills are climb, jump and swim. Obviously he is going to get his gear back, but how? Manual labour? Its not exactly a challange, and its not that mechanically relevant how you raise the money to re-arm yourselves, so why does it matter that much if you describe your character as spending the day strumming a harp on the street corner instead of ditch digging?
Because there are rules for that. Terribly bad rules that ought to be ignored or house-ruled, but by RAW, fighter guy makes but 1 silver piece a day as an unskilled labourer. Try to buy a meal and a place to sleep at with that.

Bard guy may save the day by making 1d10 or even 3d10 with his lute playing. Because, you know, skill ranks.

The key word there was auto. I am not demanding that the noble oblige just because my character praised her and used some poetic words, but if the DM autofailes the attempt because I do not have ranks in diplomacy, then they are a jerk.

Obviously for such a character ranks in diplomacy help. But if you want to play a silver tongued fighter, you probably won't want to waste skill points on diplomacy, and there is nothing wrong with you simple saying that your character is silver tongued and roleplaying him as such, even though you have no ranks.
This sounds a lot like demanding a free meal here. I don't know any GM that would have you auto-fail. But if you failed to get ranks in Diplomacy, you will fail a lot. Silver tongued fighter be damned! Just as useless as the trench-digging unskilled labourer.

Its a bit different though. Base attack bonus is clearly mechanical, but how you can influence other people is not so clear cut, since it is not completly reliant on diplomacy; other factors can influence it as well.
Those 'other factors' are called circumstance boni. Just having slain the dragon ought to give you a pretty hefty bonus, so even without any diplomatic skill should one be able to have a reasonable request be granted by the queen.

But modifiers or not, by RAW you still live or die by that all-mighty D20 roll.

At the same time you can have a fighter who does have ranks in diplomacy but is not silvered tongued. A warblade. His speeches are not long and ridden with emotive words that bring tears to the eyes and the only form of address he ever uses is "sir" or nothing. But there is something about his simple, honest ways, his trustworthy eyes that causes people to sympathise with him.
So this guy has actual ranks now. How they manifest is a roleplaying thing.

Mechanically, the only thing that matters is that his skill rank modifier is larger then 0.

Yes, but if no one in the party has ranks in diplomacy, its not as if they cannot tilt social interactions into their favour with the right words, especially if they have just done some service to the local powers. Therefor, based on this, I find it reasonable to assume that you're character can have a way with with words without ranks in diplomacy, others will just be better.

Also, as I mentioned to Gametime, just because another PC has ranks in diplomacy does not always mean they are more silver tongued than you, they are just better at persuading others to see things there way, which can have a number of explanations.
Getting positive modifiers is one thing.

Claiming that that somehow translates into being better in diplomacy is plain wrong. Your character still sucks, it is just that the circumstances make success more likely despite him being bad at diplomacy.

Note that there is no mention of any 'jerkiness' to counterbalance the supposed 'silver tongue' of your example character.

Again, this comes over like demanding something for nothing!

And then, in the next paragraph, suddenly it is 'PC [who]has ranks in Diplomacy.. are just better at persuading others'. Well duh, that is the point!

And you know what? The same character will be even better at getting favour from the queen when the party just killed that dragon!

So a party in which no one is trained in diplomacy cannnot succeed in persuading NPCs to do something?

"I want my character to be silver tongued, but all my skill points are taken up by meeting a PrC requirements"
They can succeed. Their chances are not as good as that of the party which has a guy who bothered to spend actual skill points!

Yeah, you want to be 'silver tongued' we get that. What we don't get is: What the hell is this supposed to do? Unless you bother to buy actual ranks, your character SUCKS at diplomacy, no matter how eloquent he supposedly is!

Here's the example I posted earlier off the top of my head: A warblade. His speeches are not long and ridden with emotive words that bring tears to the eyes and the only form of address he ever uses is "sir" or nothing. But there is something about his simple, honest ways, his trustworthy eyes that causes people to sympathise with him.
Becaue he has a positive CHA mod or actual ranks in Diplomacy. Yes. This guy is going to be better then the guy who has not. Your point being?

Does not work like that. Social interactions are far too complex to not use rule 0 in. Its a severe failing of the DM if they do not.

So you cannot accept that as an explanation for why a PCs has ranks in diplomacy and thus as the DM will force them to use your own explanation?

By RAW, social interactions are die rolls. Deal.

Yes, they probably should be rule-zeroed. A lot. But you still come over as someone who wants to be able to sway people without bothering to back it up mechanically.

Either you have ranks in Diplomacy or you don't. How they manifest is a roleplaying matter. Nothing more.

Yes, but you may be short on skill points in which case you can just say "my character studied carpentry and although he does not know it that well, he has a better understanding of it than most".
Or you can spend skill point on craft (not profession). Either one works.

Yes because altering fluff to gain no mechanical bonuses what so ever is clearly cheesy.
No it doesn't. If your character is supposed to have a 'better understanding then most' about anything at all, you must spend ranks.

Because the very definition of havin 0 ranks in anything is having as much understanding of the subject as any Joe Commoner. Come on, look it up, it is right there in the PHB!

At all is what you said. It won't work at all. Which is really really bad. I don't expect a character with no ranks in diplomacy to rival the party's bard, but if I cannot achieve anything in a social interaction then there is a problem.

Basically he looks like a honest indevidual, and when he talks to people he does not fill his sentances with praise or emotive words. He has a straightforward aproach that sits well with people. This is how his diplomacy ranks are represented, but by his silver tongue.

If you want to be great at something, you need to spend skill ranks, I am not arguing that. However, you do not have to spend points to learn a bit of your fathers trade of carpetting, or to play a musical instrument.

For example, you do not need ranks in ride to travel by horse. So you can say your character grew up on a farm and thus knows his way around horses a bit better. He has 0 ranks in ride, so how is this relevant? He seems a bit more sure of himself when he's cantering, but still does not know enough to control his steed in battle.

No, I am advocating DMs giving PCs a chance to achieve something in a social interaction even if they do not have ranks in diplomacy, even if it is less than what the bard achieves.
Contradicting yourself much? On the one hand you don't expect to better at anything that others bothered to spend skills at but in the very same post you complain about being useless (or rather, having a small chance of success) in a situation you did not bother to train for?

By default, everybody can ride a horse, even at 0 ranks. If you want to be etter then Joe Commoner, buy ranks. By RAW, your farmboy who grew up around horses is just a good (or bad) rider as the son of the cobbler who grew up in a city.

As long as you don't start complaining when your 'rider' fails a riding check that the fighter with actual ranks in ride managed (especially if both of you rolled the same number on the D20), then, hey, no problem. Anything else is whining. :smallmad:

A DM who sees the diplomacy skill as the only way to act in a social encounter is failing badly at his job.
It is not the only one, sure. But do you really want to, say, Intimidate the queen in her very own throne room? Really?

it is very situational, sure. But if the situation just happens to be one that can only be handled by diplomacy, people without ranks will suffer. Period.

Huh? I did not say "no communication abilities", I said no ranks in diplomacy. Suddenly thats a must have skill?
Depends. You want to have a better shot at making those damn diplomacy skill rolls? Then yes, they are a must have.

Or you and your table agree to screw those skills and RP everything. So bard boy can use those diplomacy skill points on Open Lock instead.

Otherwise, either put ranks in diplomacy or make Aid Another checks. You might get the team a +2 bonus after all.

That all I wanted. "Yes, your character can contribute to the social interaction even though he has no ranks in diplomacy."
See above: You managed to word THAT very badly.

You're the only one on this thread so far who thinks that [alignement] purely a flavour change.
My bad. Still had that awful 'but my assassin is non-evil' discussion on my mind.

Lycar

Boci

2010-02-17, 08:29 PM

huttj509

2010-02-17, 10:32 PM

If you want a character with martial arts experience, you can have levels in monk, unarmed swordsage, even wizard with imp unarmed strike. You can also just say "and as flavor, I have martial arts experience"

What you cannot do, is try to use the flavor to get something the mechanics do not give you. You cannot use the flavor version to say you shouldn't provoke an opportunity attack. You can't have your silver tongued scoundrel get a bonus to diplomacy just because you describe him as silver tongued, without taking a feat for a bonus or something. You CAN give your silver tongued scoundrel a point or 2 in diplomacy, or maybe just a high charisma, which would make him more eloquent than your everyman, and would easily deserve the moniker. He might not be able to quell the opposing horde at the drop of a hat, but he can more easily get a discount at the market.

Edit: If you have a charisma of 8, and zero diplomacy/bluff/intimidate ranks, you're gonna be hard pressed to defend seriously considering your character silver tongued.

Mike_G

2010-02-17, 11:22 PM

Okay, lets state up a friend of mine as an NPC:

She's a yellow belt in aikido and also does ju-jitsu and MMA, so clearly she has a level in monk. Or she just fights better than the average expert, but not in a way that needs to be mechanically represented. Which one is it?

I think it does need to be mechanically represented, unless she wants to get beaten up by the town ratcatcher. Depending on degree of how much better you want to stat her, she could have a level of Monk, or have a Feat like Improved Unarmed Strike, or Weapon Focus, Unarmed, or Improved Grapple, or whatever. If we make her an Expert, but write "experienced martial artist" on her sheet as "flavor," it will be hard to reconcile that with her crappy attack bonuses and grapple modifiers.

1. I never demanded a free meal. I may have been a bit unclear at first, but once I said "I'm not trying to get something for nothing" once that should have been enough.

It seems that you are arguing for a free lunch. I know you've denied it, but that isn't enough when you want "free" flavor traits to mimic what people have paid points for.

Sure, you can write down that Grabthroat Shinkicker is a straight talker who is good at winning people over, but by RAW, trying to win people over is represented by a Diplomacy check, and if he has no ranks and dumped CHA to optimize his combat stats, he won't succeed very often, and thus mechanics don't really match flavor.

2. I DM who rules that a character without ranks in diplomacy cannot contribute to a social interaction has failed at his job. One that makes the diplomacy skill useless is also failing at their job. Am I the only one who sees a middle ground?

Nobody is advocating ruling that you can't "contribute." They are pointing out that doing things like convincing the Xenophobic gate guard who feels that "we don't need no stinking lawn ornaments in my city" to let the all Dwarf party in after curfew will probably be a DC 20 Diplomacy check. The guy who, regardless of class, paid the points will have a better chance to win him over than the guy whose player wrote "seems honest and trustworthy" on his sheet but has an 8 in CHA and no ranks in anything but Jump.

3. There are different shades of 0 ranks. This should be used to give your character flavour without losing any resources. Just make sure these traits stay in the flavour section. For an example, see the fighter with the harp I posted.

Flavor is fine, to a point. In the Goode Olde Dayes, when men were men and we didn't need no stinking Diplomacy checks, you could just act out the conversation, or say "I play a mean lute", but given the clear rules in 3.5 for adjudicating things like talking your way out of a speeding ticket, or convincing the guards that you really are just an exterminator hunting rats in the Queen's wardrobe, and that garrote, poisoned dagger and vorpal sword are just because you've heard that they grow those buggers big here in Cormyr, best back that flavor up with a rank or two in Bluff.