Literally no planning at all. Permission to give diseases?

[Duboris]

So, my group is very headstrong, and I was recently planning on making them go through a bit of a rundown to learn to start thinking ahead.

So, with all groups that have to deal with this, the group managed to follow a bunch of Tiefling Courtesans to a brothel, where they, of course, are about to be robbed blind.

The question at hand is that *THREE* of them want to have sex with the courtesans, without even realizing that this isn't just your average get-together.

Am I allowed to give these bitches diseases, and, at the start of the next session, open with "You 3. Yes, you. Roll Fortitude." or should I just roll for them right now and explain to them through dialogue "You feel a ravenous burning sensation" a few days down the line?

I personally think they deserve it at this point.

[Cranthis]

Make them roll the fortitude saves, and do not explain why. Nothing scares us players more than when there is no explanation for a roll, or when a dm looks at you and rolls his dice without a word.

[elonin]

Don't forget about the level drain.

[HunterOfJello]

Take 2 of them Tieflings and 1 secretly a Succubus. Once they say what they're going to do, make 2 of them roll fortitude saves vs. diseases, then turn to the third player and start up the suggestion and negative level saves.

This will probably just teach them to avoid brothels in the future.

[Slipperychicken]

If they get black-out drunk before sex, give them Mummy Rot. No explanation.

[Duboris]

If they get black-out drunk before sex, give them Mummy Rot. No explanation.

Oh that's just evil.

[Sith_Happens]

If they get black-out drunk before sex, give them Mummy Rot. No explanation.

And lycanthropy. Specifically, weregoat.

[Laserlight]

Make them roll the fortitude saves, and do not explain why. Nothing scares us players more than when there is no explanation for a roll, or when a dm looks at you and rolls his dice without a word.

"When the DM grins, it is already too late."

[animewatcha]

Why not were-cow. Person inside brothel that has high handle animal and milks the players in front of everyone while bluffingly selling fresh were-milk. All the strength of weres with none of the drawbacks.

[Telonius]

How high-class is the brothel? If it's anything more than absolute low-end, disease should be a fairly unusual thing. Brothels don't stay in business (and courtesans don't stay employed) if their clientele starts coming down with STDs. Remove Disease is only a level-3 spell; a 1/day widget keyed to the courtesan's race, and requiring one rank of profession (courtesan), would run 3240gp. [(5*3*1800)/5]*.6

Especially if we're talking about characters capable of robbing a group of PCs blind, they're probably going to take that sort of precaution for themselves. The PCs are only going to start coming down with diseases if the courtesans are feeling vindictive.

[Mando Knight]

First, secretly roll to see whose wenches are diseased (and with what!). Then, have everyone roll Fortitude a little while later, to throw them off track. The next morning (or night, for lycanthropy or similar disease) after the roll is when they start to feel the effect...

[Duboris]

Well the courtesans themselves don't have the diseases, now that I think about it. I could just make them a bunch of, wait for it.

Jackass black widows.

[Kelb_Panthera]

What stupidity have your players put you through that's got you irritated enough to afflict them with VD? That's just mean.

Btw, give them crabs. They're parasites not a disease, so remove disease doesn't work. The shampoo doesn't exist yet, either.

[Tvtyrant]

What stupidity have your players put you through that's got you irritated enough to afflict them with VD? That's just mean.

Btw, give them crabs. They're parasites not a disease, so remove disease doesn't work. The shampoo doesn't exist yet, either.

The spell Repel Vermin would though. Bam!

[Spuddles]

Devil Chills/Demon Fever would be pretty appropriate. What'd you expect from a whore with hooves and perfume like brimstone? Hint: that's not perfume.

[gr8artist]

On a similar note, I had a fairly reckless aasimar paladin in one of my campaigns who hooked up with a random wench in a bar. Just for kicks, I made her into a tiefling in disguise. She hooked up with him hoping that their "union" would cause him to lose his paladin powers (she hates LG faiths).

He woke up the next morning chained to the bed. There was a very awkward bit of roleplay, that ended up being hilarious, and his deity intervened and told them she was pregnant. She later went on to fill in a needed NPC role, and their aasimar/tiefling child is now a very troublesome young sorceror, post-timeskip.

So yeah, have fun with it. I think there's a 3.5 book that covers similar topics... the Book of Erotic Fantasy? Got rules for pregnancy, diseases, fun stuff...

[Duboris]

It's ironic because the druid is one of the ones that is doing them :I

Also, to answer the question about what's got them irritating me, is that they were sent to retrieve a guy's kids, but instead of getting the kids back, they barred up all the exits and waited 2 weeks for everything inside to starve.

Including the kids.

[Cranthis]

Give them the cold. The one disease that can't be cured, magically or otherwise!

[Kelb_Panthera]

The spell Repel Vermin would though. Bam!

Yeah, but that spell is a druid spell, IIRC.

Druids that cast for cash are a touch more difficult to find I'd imagine. Nevermind the question of how awkward it would be to make sure said druid had LoE to the little blighters.

[Deathkeeper]

Why not were-cow. Person inside brothel that has high handle animal and milks the players in front of everyone while bluffingly selling fresh were-milk. All the strength of weres with none of the drawbacks.

While 100% hilarious, I can think of plenty of drawbacks for both sides. Also, I'm pretty sure lycanthropy can't change your gender, so this probably wouldn't work on the guys. If it did, squick.

[Kelb_Panthera]

While 100% hilarious, I can think of plenty of drawbacks for both sides. Also, I'm pretty sure lycanthropy can't change your gender, so this probably wouldn't work on the guys. If it did, squick.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure squick is the idea here, and one man's squick is another man's squee. (not that this appeals to me, mind. Rule 34.)

[Tvtyrant]

Yeah, but that spell is a druid spell, IIRC.

Druids that cast for cash are a touch more difficult to find I'd imagine. Nevermind the question of how awkward it would be to make sure said druid had LoE to the little blighters.

The Druid is all "Crabs are a natural consequence of your uninhibited ways. Removing them would upset the balance of the world."

The person ":mad:"

[Ravens_cry]

I'm not saying the DM shouldn't have fun too, but if the players are having fun with this 'kick in the door and ask questions never' style, is it really terribly fair to try and change that?
They are having fun, yes or no?

[Kelb_Panthera]

The Druid is all "Crabs are a natural consequence of your uninhibited ways. Removing them would upset the balance of the world."

The person ":mad:"

............. *collapses into a fit of uncontrollable and slightly maniacal laughter that scares his wife and the cat*

[Snowbluff]

Uh, Tieflings have a penalty to Cha. Who would want to have sex with them in the world of DnD?

[Cranthis]

Uh, Tieflings have a penalty to Cha. Who would want to have sex with them in the world of DnD?

Charisma only has to do with personality. You could be insanely beautiful, but be a total b****.

[Acanous]

"Ah, but being uninhibited and shaking off the shackles of societal norms brings me closer to nature. You have the capability to aid me in progressing this naturalistic view, by helping to remove the unforseen consequences."
Diplomancers win at everything forever.

STDs were rather uncommon in the early ages. They required large, densely populated human settlements to begin taking root, and also required ease of travel in order to spread. The STDs we have now? Were practically nonexistant back then. There were a couple, but they were few and rarely encountered.

In a world like D&D, which has Remove Disease? we're talking widespread Pennicilin that can't be adapted to, in an era where diseases are limited both in incubation and transmission.
I'm frankly surprised there's rules for (Non-magical) disease in D&D at all.

Anyhow, making one into a succubus is fair play. They'd do that. Making ALL of them into such is malicious DMing. Two players have a great time but find their coinpurse lighter than it should be. One doesn't wake up.

On a sidenote, I once had a ranger character, with Favored Enemy: Outsider (Evil). He ended up in a similar situation and was the one the Succubus targetted.

The party found out that the place was a trap that included succubi, and ran for it, later trying to True Ressurrection my character. The spell failed, as he wasn't dead.

Because I pointed out to my DM that Favored enemy adds a bonus to _all_ skill checks when dealing with the associated type, and Perform: Sexual Technique can be used untrained.

[Snowbluff]

Charisma only has to do with personality. You could be insanely beautiful, but be a total b****.

Even then, they are pariahs. And a bad personality can't be helping.

Don't get me wrong. I think horns are cute, but the fluff doesn't fit.

[VGLordR2]

Charisma only has to do with personality. You could be insanely beautiful, but be a total b****.

That's not quite true. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=Glossary_dnd_Charisma&alpha=C)

[Ravens_cry]

Even then, they are pariahs. And a bad personality can't be helping.

Don't get me wrong. I think horns are cute, but the fluff doesn't fit.
Some people find intimacy with outsiders* exciting. It feels . . .dangerous.
*Not Outsiders in the D&D sense

[Cranthis]

Even then, they are pariahs. And a bad personality can't be helping.

Don't get me wrong. I think horns are cute, but the fluff doesn't fit.

They can still hide their personalities long enough to do a paladin, to make him lose his powers. In this context I would say yes, everything is all good.

[Snowbluff]

They can still hide their personalities long enough to do a paladin, to make him lose his powers. In this context I would say yes, everything is all good.

What... I don't even... HOW!? Associating with evil characters doesn't make a Paladin lose his powers, unless you're saying sex is inherently evil in DnD. Even then, why is the Paladin sleeping with random women?

And that Cha penalty isn't help anything against a Paladin, who has Wisdom as a stat and Sense Motive as a skill. AND DETECT EVIL.

[Cranthis]

What... I don't even... HOW!? Associating with evil characters doesn't make a Paladin lose his powers, unless you're saying sex is inherently evil in DnD. Even then, why is the Paladin sleeping with random women?

And that Cha penalty isn't help anything against a Paladin, who has Wisdom as a stat and Sense Motive as a skill. AND DETECT EVIL.

Hahah no, I meant the fact that the tiefling pretended to be nice to get the paladin to do her, because the tiefling thought that. And maybe the Tiefling has really high diplomacy.

[Lord_Gareth]

They can still hide their personalities long enough to do a paladin, to make him lose his powers. In this context I would say yes, everything is all good.

Unless the paladin knows they're evil and/or is breaking laws that he's aware of breaking, why would he lose any powers?

[Cranthis]

Unless the paladin knows they're evil and/or is breaking laws that he's aware of breaking, why would he lose any powers?

The tiefling thinks that it would. I didn't say it would. Just that the tiefling might think that.

[Ravens_cry]

Hahah no, I meant the fact that the tiefling pretended to be nice to get the paladin to do her, because the tiefling thought that. And maybe the Tiefling has really high diplomacy.
Diplomacy (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/diplomacy.htm). Does. Not. Work. On Player. Characters.
I'm not sure if it got in the SRD, but in the DMG there is a blurb on Skill use on PC by NPC's.

[animewatcha]

While 100% hilarious, I can think of plenty of drawbacks for both sides. Also, I'm pretty sure lycanthropy can't change your gender, so this probably wouldn't work on the guys. If it did, squick.

I meant that last sentence as his bluffed selling pitch. And just like there is someone with high handle animal, someone else with baneful or baleful ( cant remember which ) polymorph to give the PC appropriate anatomy for the milking.

[Malroth]

Now Now if I can avoid bringing my Mind-control fetish into game you guys can turn down the transformation into were cow thing down a notch.

[animewatcha]

*looks back over the posts he did* Okay, I did not mean any innuendo or anything like that.

Just that. Sometimes you gotta do extreme things, to get the solution you want. Can always have a cleric or someone pass by and break the enchantment ( would be hard to not see it as being one ) and a nice little tidbit of said bluffer being run out of town, punished, etc.

[Slipperychicken]

The tiefling thinks that it would. I didn't say it would. Just that the tiefling might think that.

If Tieflings are considered Fiends, then consorting with it (or selling one's soul to it, or helping it in any way, or allowing it to exist at all) is an Evil Act. Which would make a Paladin lose his/her powers.


If sleeping with Tieflings is "Tapping into Evil power" (if ya know what I mean :smallamused:), that is also an Evil Act according to BoVD, and would make a Paladin fall accordingly.

[Ravens_cry]

Tiefling are people. While prone toward evil, (being "Usually evil (any)") they still get to choose for themselves what path they take.
And no, aside from an atrocious pun, I do not get what you mean by 'Tapping into Evil power" having anything to do with the sexual act.

[Deathkeeper]

Can always have a cleric or someone pass by and break the enchantment.

I just had the funniest image of a level 12 Cleric suddenly appearing, nonchalantly strolling down the street while whistling with a sign on his back reading "Get yer heals."

[Doorhandle]

I just had the funniest image of a level 12 Cleric suddenly appearing, nonchalantly strolling down the street while whistling with a sign on his back reading "Get yer heals."

...That's given me an idea.

[Wise Green Bean]

Relating to hot tieflings. You roll a natural 18 for CHA, that's still a 16...Better than I'm doing in the looks OR personality department.

Also, Races of Destiny tiefling picture...
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/rod_gallery/86313.jpg
Leave your personal tastes out of it, that's not a bad looking lady, forget about the influence of alcohol.

[Sith_Happens]

Uh, Tieflings have a penalty to Cha. Who would want to have sex with them in the world of DnD?

Tieflings get a +2 racial bonus to bluff and have favored class rogue. The -2 Cha means nothing.

[Cranthis]

Well, it also depends on the god the Paladin worships. In the games my group runs, if we are paladins, we must Be either the deity's alignment, or any Lawful that is compatible (i.e. if the god was neutral, you could pick any of the lawfulls or neutral).

My friend had a Paladin named Perath (who later ascended into godhood, becoming Perath, the god of overly loud responses, and some other good stuff you should read about too(Yes that is the whole title)) and he worshipped Tyr. As Tyr is a neutral god of war, the paladin got away with anything that wasn't evil. He was lawful good, but he would go out drink and do hookers, as his god would not punish him for anything except dishonorable combat.

[willpell]

Nevermind the question of how awkward it would be to make sure said druid had LoE to the little blighters.

Awkward for the victim perhaps, but he did bring it on himself. Druids are not likely to mind, being the "down to earth" people they are.


Because I pointed out to my DM that Favored enemy adds a bonus to _all_ skill checks when dealing with the associated type, and Perform: Sexual Technique can be used untrained.

Perhaps you're discussing 3.0 or Pathfinder? In 3.5, Favored Enemy specifically only affects certain skills - Bluff, Sense Motive, Survival, and a couple others. Perform of any variety is not on the list (as funny as the idea of a juggler-ranger who entertains demons to death is).

[Ashtagon]

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=951

[Slipperychicken]

And no, aside from an atrocious pun, I do not get what you mean by 'Tapping into Evil power" having anything to do with the sexual act.

Yeah, it was just a horrible pun. If they aren't considered Fiends, sleeping with/associating with/helping/allowing them to exist should be fine.

[Ravens_cry]

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=951
Ye gods, I remember the first time I read DM of the Rings. I was laughing so hard I literally slid out of my chair.:smallbiggrin:

[HunterColt22]

Go for it. :/ We had a paladin get drunk one night, and he did it with a dwarf, a very old one mind you, apparently she was very limber. Hilarity ensues for everyone else as now the paladin hides his shame since only two people know, one an anti social female fighter, and two, a drunk pseudo dragon that saw it, but doesn't remember because he blacked out.

Also I'd roll d% for pregnancy. Get the numbers and have the players roll it randomly during the next session, preferably after a battle so that they think its for goodies. Oh course I can just be being mean at this point. :smallbiggrin: Who knows, this may provide character hooks for another session in this world down the line, who wouldn't want to play a half succubi/whatever.

[Kelb_Panthera]

If Tieflings are considered Fiends, then consorting with it (or selling one's soul to it, or helping it in any way, or allowing it to exist at all) is an Evil Act. Which would make a Paladin lose his/her powers.


If sleeping with Tieflings is "Tapping into Evil power" (if ya know what I mean :smallamused:), that is also an Evil Act according to BoVD, and would make a Paladin fall accordingly.

Considering tieflings fiends is quite a stretch. There is no RAW for what a fiend is, so I won't say it's impossible, but generally a fiend at least needs the evil subtype. Personally, I only call it a fiend if it's an outsider with the evil subtype AND it's native to the abyss, baator, or one of the planes between those two.

[killem2]

I would make them lesser vampires that are being forced to do bidding by a pimp who is a much more powerful vampire.

:) Vampires love to love.

[Snowbluff]

@Wise Green Bean It's not just their Cha score, they also are social pariahs. Most people take one look at them in DnD and "Ugh".

[Kelb_Panthera]

@Wise Green Bean It's not just their Cha score, they also are social pariahs. Most people take one look at them in DnD and "Ugh".

This assumes a fairly uniform culture across the game world.

That's almost certainly not the case though. In different places tieflings could be either the social pariah or the race to be if you want a good social standing. It all depends on who's looking and where they're coming from.

Anything to do with social interaction is way too complex to accurately describe in a single sentence.

[HunterColt22]

@Wise Green Bean It's not just their Cha score, they also are social pariahs. Most people take one look at them in DnD and "Ugh".

As stated multiple times social interaction is far to complex even in a very stripped down imaginative setting which some campaigns take place in than can adequately be discussed or made fact in a single sentence. :smallannoyed: This is also in relation to what you are looking at for the society and who's you are comparing it to. Is it ours, theirs, someone else, the funny tree man sitting in the branch eating nuts and throwing wood peckers at you. Society is a complex beast comprised of mores morals, rules stipulations and mandatory customary interactions and body language.

This is just a very compressed and highly impromptu, and quite frankly terrible paragraph that doesn't even scratch the surface of what you are suggesting. Not to be rude or anything of the sort but a lot more goes on, even in a social caste system such as what was used in historical India, and is still somewhat practiced to this day in much less developed sectors of the nation. Let's just say that what may be weird is cool beans only two minutes drive away.

Oh look, my psychology degree is showing. :smallsigh:

[Snowbluff]

Except the MM tells us the sort of preconceptions associated with being a Tiefling. Sure, it's a sociological viewpoint provided to us by a DnD sourcebook, bur surely you understand my exasperation?

[HunterColt22]

Except the MM tells us the sort of preconceptions associated with being a Tiefling. Sure, it's a sociological viewpoint provided to us by a DnD sourcebook, bur surely you understand my exasperation?

Understand the exasperation you are having, yes, defense of it, eh not so much. Considering books can and are wrong. Look at the Histories by Herodotus or any journal from the early 16th to late 19th century. Granted it is in the MM, which gives a definition of how a monster should act, and should be viewed doesn't mean it's how everything is played out that way, or should be that way.

In my current campaign I have a teifling who runs a huge black smith industry and is damn near the best if not the best around for it and is honest with his prices, I have him also as a teacher to my character for poison use and crafting.

Again, defense in the name of showing a fact is okay, trying to say that everything should be that way because it says so in a written piece of work that has bias in it is incorrect.


Though we are getting far removed from the topic now. If you want to continue this discussion PM me, otherwise, the topic. I still say yes give it to them, let them reap the whirlwind of bad decision making for having intercourse with said seedier choices of women without a second thought.

[Lord_Gareth]

Considering tieflings fiends is quite a stretch. There is no RAW for what a fiend is, so I won't say it's impossible, but generally a fiend at least needs the evil subtype. Personally, I only call it a fiend if it's an outsider with the evil subtype AND it's native to the abyss, baator, or one of the planes between those two.

Actually there is! A Fiend is ANY Outsider that has the [Evil] subtype.

[willpell]

Yeah, I wouldn't take that charisma penalty too literally myself; they didn't seem to be able to make up their minds whether tieflings should be monstrous demon-spawn or devilishly handsome/beautiful seducers, and the penalty is only appropriate in one of those cases. Really, they should have made two separate races, one for the b*****s of the Abyss and the other for carefully cultivated Infernal tempters. Replacing the Charisma penalty with one to Wisdom would be fitting in the latter case, assuming you even think they need a penalty when Aasimars don't have one.

[Slipperychicken]

Actually there is! A Fiend is ANY Outsider that has the [Evil] subtype.

But, but.. I always wanted an excuse to slaughter Tieflings... :smallfrown:

[Sith_Happens]

Yeah, I wouldn't take that charisma penalty too literally myself; they didn't seem to be able to make up their minds whether tieflings should be monstrous demon-spawn or devilishly handsome/beautiful seducers, and the penalty is only appropriate in one of those cases. Really, they should have made two separate races, one for the b*****s of the Abyss and the other for carefully cultivated Infernal tempters. Replacing the Charisma penalty with one to Wisdom would be fitting in the latter case, assuming you even think they need a penalty when Aasimars don't have one.

According to the tiefling description in Races of Destiny, the Charisma penalty is due to there being something just sort of "off" about them.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Actually there is! A Fiend is ANY Outsider that has the [Evil] subtype.

I'm betting you got that from the description of the evil subtype in the MM glossary?

That entry says that outsiders with the subtype are commonly called fiends, not that all fiends are outsiders with the subtype. It's a subtle distinction but it's there.

Nowhere in all of 3.5 does it explicitly give a definition for fiend. Consequently we can only infer what a fiend is through context. Since different people infer differently, noone can give a definitive definition for fiend, in the context of RAW, that is 100%, guaranteed accurate.

[Lord_Gareth]

Yeah, I wouldn't take that charisma penalty too literally myself; they didn't seem to be able to make up their minds whether tieflings should be monstrous demon-spawn or devilishly handsome/beautiful seducers, and the penalty is only appropriate in one of those cases. Really, they should have made two separate races, one for the b*****s of the Abyss and the other for carefully cultivated Infernal tempters. Replacing the Charisma penalty with one to Wisdom would be fitting in the latter case, assuming you even think they need a penalty when Aasimars don't have one.

....No. There's no need for a sub-race of tieflings, even if you want to keep the penalty. If you want your tiefling to be an infernal tempter, then buy up your Charisma. The penalty's only -2, it's not like you're going to be a trogolodyte with it, and their bonus to Bluff makes it a net positive in that particular case.

Houseruling the penalty away I can see. Making an entirely new subrace would be redundant in so many ways - like Vasharans, really.

[Snowbluff]

....No. There's no need for a sub-race of tieflings, even if you want to keep the penalty.

Pathfinder disagrees. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/fiendish-heritage) Oh god does Pathfinder disagree...:smalleek:

[Lord_Gareth]

Pathfinder disagrees. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/general-feats/fiendish-heritage) Oh god does Pathfinder disagree...:smalleek:

That may be so, but I consider Jason and Seak K. Reynolds to be two of the worst designers to ever be published; what they DID publish for Pathfinder has no bearing on what SHOULD be done for 3.5.

[Snowbluff]

That may be so, but I consider Jason and Seak K. Reynolds to be two of the worst designers to ever be published; what they DID publish for Pathfinder has no bearing on what SHOULD be done for 3.5.

Well, Tieflings have Paladin as a favored class. Which... makes only some sense sometimes...

[gooddragon1]

Situations like this are why i recommend every character take a 1 level dip in warblade at 9th level: Ironheart Surge and White Raven Tactics (get one or the other through a feat). Specifically the first one in this case: Negative levels you say? Nope. A diease!!! BY CROM!

The other is for the situation that the DM says: Thy character shall suck now and only 1 in the group may be of use.

To which you reply: Then the fun shall be DOUBLED!

[Snowbluff]

To which you reply: Then the fun shall be DOUBLED!

HAHA! /)

Yeah, they are pretty awesome. :smallcool:

[Malroth]

But, but.. I always wanted an excuse to slaughter Tieflings... :smallfrown:

Neeshka, all the excuse you'll need.

[Kelb_Panthera]

But, but.. I always wanted an excuse to slaughter Tieflings... :smallfrown:

You're a wandering murder-hobo. Who needs excuses? :belkar:

[willpell]

According to the tiefling description in Races of Destiny, the Charisma penalty is due to there being something just sort of "off" about them.

The same logic is applied to Elans, who are explicitly stated to usually be good-looking.


....No. There's no need for a sub-race of tieflings, even if you want to keep the penalty. If you want your tiefling to be an infernal tempter, then buy up your Charisma. The penalty's only -2, it's not like you're going to be a trogolodyte with it, and their bonus to Bluff makes it a net positive in that particular case.

That -2 penalty can be an extremely big deal, at least in point-buy. It means you can't attain a +4 modifier, and have to pay through the nose even to have a +2 one, while if you invest nothing you end up with a -2 modifier which otherwise isn't possible in PB.

[Lord_Gareth]

The same logic is applied to Elans, who are explicitly stated to usually be good-looking.



That -2 penalty can be an extremely big deal, at least in point-buy. It means you can't attain a +4 modifier, and have to pay through the nose even to have a +2 one, while if you invest nothing you end up with a -2 modifier which otherwise isn't possible in PB.

No, it really isn't a big deal. Not being able to attain a +4 modifier doesn't mean much. Now, is it sub-optimal to play a Tiefling Bard or Sorcerer or invest in Cha-based skills as a Tiefling? Slightly. You could certainly be playing better races for it. But if your concept involves Tiefling ANYWAY, it's not that big a deal - and I speak from experience.

[Spuddles]

According to the tiefling description in Races of Destiny, the Charisma penalty is due to there being something just sort of "off" about them.

That's pretty dumb, considering the charisma, say, an illithid has. I guess if you're the brain eating spawn of lurking horrors from beyond reality, from a race that had to travel back in time to escape their future, you come out the other side of "off" so far that you're ok.

[Lord_Gareth]

That's pretty dumb, considering the charisma, say, an illithid has. I guess if you're the brain eating spawn of lurking horrors from beyond reality, from a race that had to travel back in time to escape their future, you come out the other side of "off" so far that you're ok.

Well, also keep in mind that early in 3.5's run the designers REALLY did not know what they were doing and were wildly inconsistent about EVERYTHING EVER.

[Spuddles]

Well, also keep in mind that early in 3.5's run the designers REALLY did not know what they were doing and were wildly inconsistent about EVERYTHING EVER.

Agreed. I thingk Good and Charisma are pretty big fails, probably because different authors had differing amounts lf baggage from older editions. Like my
DM is all "can paladins event use bows how is that chivalrous is enlarge person an unfair advantage." WAT. WAT.

Look at the trash job BoED does.

Wasn't RoD pretty late in 3e's run? I always rule that charisma and looks are unrelated. No matter how big and perky and symmetrical your tits are, they're not the source of your spell casting ability. They won't even help you with that diplomacy check.

[willpell]

No, it really isn't a big deal.

For sorcerers it's the difference between having a bonus spell at level 7 and not having a bonus spell at level 7. Not the hugest deal, but not insignificant. And that's only because this is Charisma, which has fewer baked-in effects than other stats. Strength, for instance, really wants to be an 18, because it not only means +1 damage on a one-handed weapon, but +2 damage on a two-handed one. The designers loved to give penalties to Charisma, apparently based solely on human aesthetics - why exactly are goblins bad at being sorcerers?

[Flickerdart]

For sorcerers it's the difference between having a bonus spell at level 7 and not having a bonus spell at level 7. Not the hugest deal, but not insignificant.
Of course it's not insignificant. if it were insignificant, there would be no point in having numbers at all. But at that point you have so many spells already that it doesn't terribly matter if you have another one.



And that's only because this is Charisma, which has fewer baked-in effects than other stats. Strength, for instance, really wants to be an 18, because it not only means +1 damage on a one-handed weapon, but +2 damage on a two-handed one.
Oh wow, +2 damage. If you're dealing 2 less than the maximum damage, you might as well not be playing the game.



The designers loved to give penalties to Charisma, apparently based solely on human aesthetics - why exactly are goblins bad at being sorcerers?
An Aboleth has a Charisma of 17, and it's described as repulsive by the book itself. Beauty has jack all to do with Charisma.

[willpell]

Of course it's not insignificant. if it were insignificant, there would be no point in having numbers at all. But at that point you have so many spells already that it doesn't terribly matter if you have another one.


Oh wow, +2 damage. If you're dealing 2 less than the maximum damage, you might as well not be playing the game.

Given the level of play that I intentionally strive for, the first statement is not accurate, and the second is fairly close to sincere rather than being sarcastic. I admittedly have yet to get a spellcaster past level 7 or 8, but within the levels I'm familiar with, there is never a moment when you can spare a bonus spell if you would be entitled to it for reasons apart from personal choice (ie if your concept is to not be very charismatic for a sorcerer, it's okay to have 16 charisma, but if your concept is that you are as charismatic as possible, but you get randomly screwed by the stapled-on flavor of your race, that sucks and you should change the race to better reflect your vision of it). And given that I ban anything that I regard as an exploit, certainly including all of this "charge for 100+ damage" nonsense, any non-exploitative method of dealing a relevant amount of damage is an extremely big deal. If you're meant to be bashing with a whammer for 10-14 damage, losing 2 points of that maximum is extremely significant.


An Aboleth has a Charisma of 17, and it's described as repulsive by the book itself. Beauty has jack all to do with Charisma.

This is a good point. Though it doesn't explain why Aboleths cast with Charisma; they really should have zilch Charisma and calculate their SLAs based on Intelligence. The Psionic Aboleth rectifies this, but even if you're not using psionics, it makes no particular sense for the Aboleth to be Charisma-based; this is just a consequence of the rather unwise decision to make all SLAs Charisma-based, which mandates that SLA-based monsters have to have decent Charisma, even if it makes no sense for them to have high Diplomacy and Perform checks.

[Flickerdart]

Given the level of play that I intentionally strive for, the first statement is not accurate, and the second is fairly close to sincere rather than being sarcastic. I admittedly have yet to get a spellcaster past level 7 or 8, but within the levels I'm familiar with, there is never a moment when you can spare a bonus spell if you would be entitled to it for reasons apart from personal choice (ie if your concept is to not be very charismatic for a sorcerer, it's okay to have 16 charisma, but if your concept is that you are as charismatic as possible, but you get randomly screwed by the stapled-on flavor of your race, that sucks and you should change the race to better reflect your vision of it). And given that I ban anything that I regard as an exploit, certainly including all of this "charge for 100+ damage" nonsense, any non-exploitative method of dealing a relevant amount of damage is an extremely big deal. If you're meant to be bashing with a whammer for 10-14 damage, losing 2 points of that maximum is extremely significant.

So your problem isn't with low stats being a severe impact on effectiveness. Your problem is with low stats being a severe impact on effectiveness because you have banned every other way to improve it.

Should have said so in the first place.




This is a good point. Though it doesn't explain why Aboleths cast with Charisma; they really should have zilch Charisma and calculate their SLAs based on Intelligence. The Psionic Aboleth rectifies this, but even if you're not using psionics, it makes no particular sense for the Aboleth to be Charisma-based; this is just a consequence of the rather unwise decision to make all SLAs Charisma-based, which mandates that SLA-based monsters have to have decent Charisma, even if it makes no sense for them to have high Diplomacy and Perform checks.
Or Charisma just doesn't represent what you think it represents. A much more plausible answer, which doesn't require us to assume that the system is wrong. Since everyone shares a common system, and not everyone shares your opinion, when the two clash the system wins. Sorry.

[willpell]

So your problem isn't with low stats being a severe impact on effectiveness. Your problem is with low stats being a severe impact on effectiveness because you have banned every other way to improve it.

By my definition, illogical exploits in the system are not an "improvement". Using a rules loophole to achieve 50x the stats that are possible by the primariy current of the rules does not prove that you have "system mastery", it proves that the rules were sloppily written, which we already knew to be the case. Wizards had a finite number of editors working on a deadline, rushing a product out the door to make a buck, and at least tolerating or perhaps even encouraging that the community was going to argue about the results. Inevitable in reality, perhaps, but certainly not what I regard as ideal.


Or Charisma just doesn't represent what you think it represents. A much more plausible answer, which doesn't require us to assume that the system is wrong.

We already know the system is wrong. We have drown-healing, class tiers, game-winning Glitterdust compared with the severe nerfing of Evocations, prestige classes that range from Horizon Walker to Planar Shepherd in potency with little distinction, to say nothing of all the design technology which was introduced in later books which fails to improve their predecessors (such as the stapling on of swift and immediate actions, without giving the PHB classes entirely new sets of class features that would benefit from these). The Psionic Aboleth is a perfect example, because the Aboleth ought properly never have had a non-psionic version; it's a psionc monster in the first place, so instead of it having "spell like" abilities which are called "psionics", it should have been either left out of the monster manual and introduced in the EPH, or used in the monster manual as a teaser for the EPH, with enough of the full psionics rules included for it and the Mind Flayer and so forth to work as they properly always should have, and there wouldn't be contradictory versions.


Since everyone shares a common system, and not everyone shares your opinion, when the two clash the system wins. Sorry.

This is reasonable as far as it goes; for now you're right that this is only my opinion, and the RAW does make a good neutral reference point. But while a few of the things I say really are just my opinion, most of them are my perfectionist assessment of what ought to be done, if making the best possible system were the goal instead of lining a company's pockets. Even when I'm arguing on behalf of a somewhat lopsided vision, such as my belief that the Fighter should be the power-level baseline, the full and complete version of the plan I'm evolving toward would incorporate methods of catering to those who disagree with me. The only perspective that I don't have any desire to accomodate is "tolerate everything that's obviously and absurdly wrong with the way things are, for no reason whatsoever other than that it is the way things are." Just because the rules are a certain way doesn't mean they should be, or that they can't be better, or that they should be treated as anything other than a stopgap measure on the way to something better.

[Lord_Gareth]

By my definition, illogical exploits in the system are not an "improvement". Using a rules loophole to achieve 50x the stats that are possible by the primariy current of the rules does not prove that you have "system mastery", it proves that the rules were sloppily written, which we already knew to be the case. Wizards had a finite number of editors working on a deadline, rushing a product out the door to make a buck, and at least tolerating or perhaps even encouraging that the community was going to argue about the results. Inevitable in reality, perhaps, but certainly not what I regard as ideal.

Willpell, as someone who doesn't really bother about optimization in his games, let me say this: you're wrong. Not necessarily in anything you've just said, but in the idea behind what you've just said. There's lots and lots and lots of non-exploit ways to make that +1 or -1 totally and wholly irrelevant, and it's not the fault of the system or the community at large that you either refuse to see them or don't believe they're legitimate. Let us recount:

- Raging barbarians don't care about those two stat points (bonus: gnomish barbarians make up for it with extra-length rages).
- Rogues don't care about those two stat points, straight up.
- Tome of Battle classes frankly couldn't care if they rolled straight 12's.
- Wizards, sorcerers, clerics, and other Vancian casters don't care.
- Psions do care! However, they don't care enough; while they lose out on some PP, they can regain it using the average, everyday items in the DMG.
- Fighters don't care. No, really, they don't. Low-op fighters have bigger problems. Mid-op fighters make those two points irrelevant. High-op fighters swapped bodies with something four levels ago and don't even remember what stats they rolled.
- Knights don't care. -2 Con? They roll D12s! -2 Strength? Oil of Magic Weapon! -2 Dex? Maybe a little, but for the most part no.
- Factotums and warlocks don't care and mostly for the same reason. Even -2 int on the factotum isn't that big a deal.

Do I need to go on? If you're purposefully forcing your players to nerf themselves or rolling with 25 point buy or something of that nature, then yes that -2 starts happening. But at that point I'd like to argue that you're not playing a game of heroic doings any more.

[ericgrau]

They're mundane diseases, so I wouldn't go overboard with the DCs nor the effects. If it only hurts the character a little then that's the solution not the problem. That said diseases do stacking damage so after a couple days or so it could do more damage, but still not overwhelming. And the slow, gradually building annoyances to your players are the best kind :smallbiggrin:. Make sure whichever cleric they see roleplays and asks lots of questions.