This is an announcement post from over 2 years ago and it still hasn't been updated. I did a little searching and found this example and was wondering if this was what was meant by the post and if it was could it be added as an update?
This topic is always a can of worms, moreso with mentals.
It's hard to quantify low wisdom or low charisma. Low int is even worse, because you can just learn things from being on the server and then not seem like you have 8 int.
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
You'll never get the DMs to say a specific stat should act or can act in a certain way. I know, I've tried. It always comes down to a case by case basis, relative to what's going on and with whom. It can lead to some freaking frustrating situations, such as one DM saying you're capable of doing one thing, and another the next day saying you're not(been there), but... they mean well. Every time it's come up, I've still insisted that some basic guidelines and "yardsticks" as was said in that thread would help both DM and player with consistency and expectations. And well worth whatever relative flexibility not having them allows DMs topside.
That's all to say, stat penalties, like stat bonuses, are largely left up to interpretation. You might get nudged if you act in a way a DM wouldn't think you're capable of, but for the most part it's left up to your own choosing in how much your penalties mean to your PC and how they manifest.
_________________
You think Magic is your ally... but you merely adopted the Art. He was born in it. Molded by it. Sometimes, an angel is simply a devil with better intentions.
I've got a set of lists much like the DMingWithCharisma site, but it's only low/zero/high for the mental stats.
Low WIS is nice and easy to RP: Make mistakes and learn from them if you have zero or higher INT. You'll take care of the first part yourself because we're all much less careful with our character's lives than we would be with our own. Now, this leads to the situation that Ruce is in - he's still a feckless'n'reckless old goat but he's been running in the wilds since forever and has made just about every mistake it's possible to make, so when he bumped into a new character(new player as well as new to the island ICly) he sounded like fucking Yoda, with all the sound advice he was giving.
Low INT has bugged me forever. Let me quote me to you, from 2011 :
Quote:
This has bugged me for bloody ages. I don't know how many of you have genuinely never spoken to someone who is most tactfully called a person with additional learning needs, and least tactfully a retard, but in the main, you don't get the 'me want smash now' guff that 99% of INT-dumped half-orc Barbs give you. The dialogue options in the NWN campaigns are the offenders I have in mind here because that's what everyone bases their RP on, and they're bad examples.
You get very simple sentences, but they're in the first person and they have the definite or indefinite articles and the infinitive. Adults do not sound like toddlers because their IQ is low; they sound like adults with a limited vocabulary and very little use of the abstract.
I know it's a lot harder to RP around a stupid person without the flag of the babytalk, and I know it leaves the door open for cheesebags to dump INT and sound like Oscar Wilde* but it bugs me anyway.
*Admittedly this isn't anything like as prevalent as charming people with dumped CHA because of skillpoints and Improved Knockdown.
Low CHA is the one we're actually here to talk about, right? When I'm dealing with CHA I think of how much people would want to invite the character to a nice middle-class dinner party like you see in films written by Richard Curtis. If I have to dump CHA because I'm a filthy powergamer aiming for a specific feat, then I think of all the traits that would have Jocasta and Farqhuar 'accidentally leave your invite at home when we posted the others' and saddle the poor character with one or two of them.
Low CHA doesn't have to mean disfigured, nor does it have to mean tactless*, although both of them have their place. As fate would have it, I'm running three characters at the minute whose combined CHA scores exactly equal Ruce's.
*and being tactless on purpose? Well, that's called an insult, and in game terms a Taunt, which is a CHA-based skill, so I would steer clear of justifying low CHA by insulting people a lot.
One of them is basically nice, but he's cripplingly shy and would much rather be at home fussing over his scythe than having to speak to people. Jocasta and Farqhuar would basically be doing him a favour by not inviting him.
Another is so wrapped up in his austere world of martial arts that he finds it baffling that people would actually talk for the sake of talking. He's not the kind of person that will use two words when one could possibly do, and if he has to use two, then he'll probably just not say anything instead. Wasted space at the dinner party, and also he never wears a shirt, so....no.
The third actually is just rude. Relentlessly foul-mouthed and grumpy and the idea that he's got any table manners is laughable. Wouldn't even have him in the house, darling.
You'll never get the DMs to say a specific stat should act or can act in a certain way. I know, I've tried. It always comes down to a case by case basis, relative to what's going on and with whom. It can lead to some freaking frustrating situations, such as one DM saying you're capable of doing one thing, and another the next day saying you're not(been there), but... they mean well. Every time it's come up, I've still insisted that some basic guidelines and "yardsticks" as was said in that thread would help both DM and player with consistency and expectations. And well worth whatever relative flexibility not having them allows DMs topside.
That's all to say, stat penalties, like stat bonuses, are largely left up to interpretation. You might get nudged if you act in a way a DM wouldn't think you're capable of, but for the most part it's left up to your own choosing in how much your penalties mean to your PC and how they manifest.
Then why have a post marked as an announcement that claims it will be updated with that exact information? Delete the announcement. It doesn't make sense to keep it and emphasize they must be RP'd and then never update it with a yardstick of what they expect. Thanks Uce for the explanation. The concern I have is while part of your post I agree with part of it I disagree with. Like you claim insulting someone is equal to the cha based skill taunt and therefore doesn't correlate with low charisma. The taunt skill in my humbledore represents tactical and intentional taunting to recieve a tactical advantage. Low cha insulting is like Sheldon on the big bang theory. Insulting without intending to be insulting. In fact I use Sheldon as a well known example of low cha. The dude has no social skills and can not identify emotions or social cues.
It would just make more sense to me for the DM's and players alike if the DM's posted a yardstick of how they expect low stats to be played and not just mental ones. There are a lot of full plate wearing low dex people running around.
The distinction is in lack of intent, and I didn't make it clear, mea culpa.
'Tactless' is the Sheldon kind where you don't understand The Rules Of What Not To Say. You end up offending people a lot, but that isn't the same as insulting them.
'Insulting' is when you not only know exactly what The Rules are, but also which one is best to break to upset the person in question. In combat, this translates to a loss of AC as they lose focus on fighting, and that's what it's for in argument-as-contest too.
Part of a sub-10 CHA score is not knowing about The Rules, methinkles. That's not to say that no-one under 10CHA can ever call yo momma a bitch, but there's no wit or demonstration of understanding social mores there, except at the very crudest level. What I had in mind was a character artfully insulting other people and their player justifying it by saying ' oh look he's rude.'
The distinction is in lack of intent, and I didn't make it clear, mea culpa.
'Tactless' is the Sheldon kind where you don't understand The Rules Of What Not To Say. You end up offending people a lot, but that isn't the same as insulting them.
'Insulting' is when you not only know exactly what The Rules are, but also which one is best to break to upset the person in question. In combat, this translates to a loss of AC as they lose focus on fighting, and that's what it's for in argument-as-contest too.
Part of a sub-10 CHA score is not knowing about The Rules, methinkles. That's not to say that no-one under 10CHA can ever call yo momma a bitch, but there's no wit or demonstration of understanding social mores there, except at the very crudest level. What I had in mind was a character artfully insulting other people and their player justifying it by saying ' oh look he's rude.'
100% Agree. Did you have an idea for the negative physical stats like Dex? Most builds that I can think of with an 8/9 dex match the website's description. Some sort of mild co-ordination issue. Not necessarily a bumbling, and overly clumsy sort, but definitely less than graceful.
One thing I have always found interesting is that there is a focus on RPing your mental stats, yet there are characters with 18+ Con/18+ Str some of them both that their description states things like "Thin" "Lithe" etc. I mean if we're requesting players RP their stats, that means unless your STR and CON are around maybe 14 and below (maybe I am being too generous), you shouldn't really describe yourself as thin, skinny, lithe, slender, etc. Now that doesn't mean a character has to be all hulked out on steroids just because of a high strength and or con, but you're going to have muscle and be moved away from the thin/lithe/slender body type towards the athletic/stout and strong body type.
Well, first off, when you say those descriptions, I think of elf. So, those, (I'm not good on elven lore) I think still are thin when strong. Well, compared to human.
Otherwise, well. I'd say there is an extent in which you have some freedom there. Just like I've never seen a dwarf with those descriptions, even if it was a dexer. Then also, I'd say there is a certain amount of stereotypes. (I'm calling them stereotypes, mainly because I do not want to get into any discussions about RL) Women tend to be less muscular, a bias towards young adventurers, some other things. At the same time, I think many people want two things on their characters: They want them to be somewhat as they imagine them. In most cases, that is attractiveness. I know in my case, my goblin with 14 Int and Wis still talks like all goblins do, even though by all means he should talk normally. People have views of their characters and want to play those, not some 'boring' version that only is set apart by their huge biceps. I'd even go as far as to say that this phenomenon is not limited to 'powergamers', but also in an extent even those people that 'build for RP'.
Then, I'd say the impossibility of playing higher stats. Or, at least the difficulty. If my character is smarter, wiser, or more charismatic than me, how do I do that? That's the reason I like WMs and Assassins. If I'd have to chose one I'd call myself, of those three abilities, it'd be intelligence. And even then, not the 20-30+ levels of Wizard. But I just don't personally see how you could play a Druid with 30+ wisdom, unless you are particular wise yourself. You are essentially playing the brain of your PC. The computer does the body. The body is what is most easily changed. Dumbing yourself down is easy enough, at least in the whole 'baby talk' way Uce talked about. But your character being smarter than you are, I don't see how that works.
Joined: 20 Apr 2008 Location: The downeaster "Alexa"
TheWok wrote:
Then why have a post marked as an announcement that claims it will be updated with that exact information? Delete the announcement. It doesn't make sense to keep it and emphasize they must be RP'd and then never update it with a yardstick of what they expect.
Hell if I know man, I was only sharing my personal experience with the question. Generally, people understand how to RP penalties, even if they need to be reminded of it occasionally. My main gripe was always not knowing the generally accepted capabilities of what good stats the PC did have.
_________________
You think Magic is your ally... but you merely adopted the Art. He was born in it. Molded by it. Sometimes, an angel is simply a devil with better intentions.
The way I do with ability score is this. All stats have a number of "perks" you can "level up" every time you get 2 base in a stat. There is a set maximum you can get in one perk, and you are allowed to take negatives in one perk so that you can have a trait that your current ability score doesn't warrant. It's a personal guideline I follow.
Example with charisma:
Let's say Charisma has the following traits / perks.
Example 1: Jim. Jim has 8 charisma. He needs to start with a handicap in one of the perks, and the other two perks will be "By Default" (thus not negative nor positive). Jim's player decides his character is the guy you expect to die if you go on an adventure he's the leader of. Out of a hundred people to choose to lead, Jim is the 80th guy you'll choose. If left as is, he's a character that you won't forget, yet won't necessary remember or think about often. He's also a guy you won't consider ugly, nor particularly attractive. Just a regular average dude... that you don't particularly want to entrust your life with.
Let's say Jim's player decides to make it so Jim is also pretty ugly. He's got the face of someone who's had a date with a shovel, and asked for an encore. In exchange for that, Jim's presence / lasting impression goes up by "one level". Now, instead of not really remember Jim or noticing him right away, you know exactly when he's there, and you might remember something the guy did and tell your friends stories about it. Jim can then become the obnoxious dude that sometimes gets on your nerves, or the poor nice guy with a bloated face that you want to introduce to your friends some day.
---- Example 2: Hanamori Saya Saya has 16 charisma. I roleplay her as being very pretty - for as long as you're into petite small-breasted girls and the cricket legs and wings don't turn you off too much. Even with that, she's still a girl that'll be hard to deny has a certain physical attractiveness. I consider she has +2 to the Looks and Attractiveness, with varying effectiveness ranging from +1 or +3 depending on the other character's preferences (the wings, legs, petite body can work against her, or her exoticness might work for her)
She's also a character that will be very easy to notice and of which you might talk about around a campfire and might want to introduce or warry against encountering (depending on your char's persona and the effect Saya's personality has on you). I consider she has +1 to the Presence / Lasting Impression, with a potential +2 depending on how people react to her personality, or the setting she is in (if she invites people for a storytelling event and takes the stage, for example).
However, despite a positive charisma score, Saya is not someone you will want to elect as your leader on a battlefield. She's not your worst choice, but you will surely decide to choose someone else given a replacement is around. That does not mean that she won't try to take the lead, however, as Saya in personality is someone who likes to control, despite being a reactionary character that has very little control over herself on over many of the decisions she makes. And that is exactly why you won't pick her as your leader; if you know Saya, you will know she is unpredictable, and might just change the course of your expedition at a whim if her curiosity dictates her to do so. Because of this, I consider Saya has a +0 (she can get you somewhere safely) or even -1 to her leadership skills (if her curiosity kicks in).
That self-imposed penalty to leadership, along with the legs / wings having a potential creep factor that can negatively impact her attractiveness is what I use to justify the unstable Presence / Beauty / Leadership. I consider that the way I roleplay my character is thus justified. My view on how charisma is represented on her is also the reason why I never considered getting levels of Knight Commander on her rebuild was an option. ---------
I do that for all the stats and I think it makes roleplaying my characters more interesting has they have a more precise showing / representation. Charisma, in particular, is difficult to roleplay for many. It actually annoys me when someone with 8 charisma pretends to be good-looking / a good leader / someone you remember and spoke of with a big presence and personality that stands out. I think the character's ability score -needs- to matter and be taken into account, and that is especially true on a server that puts an emphasis on Roleplay. In my mind, if you roleplay your 8 charisma character as a greek god, you are not roleplaying your character right and dms should not reward you for it.
There is a price for min-maxing (or at least there should be one).
The differing way people RP their stats is exactly why I felt with an announcement that promised to be updated with yardstick examples is exactly why I feel those examples are needed. The DM's are the final say here and just like how I might feel one person's interpretation of negative stats is incorrect so may they and without any yardstick to go off of you get people doing things their own way and telling other people their way is wrong.
Examples: Robbi:
I understand the stereotypes and they are represented by the stats each race gets. For instance elves are slim thus the minus to con. But keep in mind that MOST elves being slim is because most have an 8 con (because 10 is average and our PC's are considered exceptional) and focus more on dex a la the bonus to it. But some subraces are known to be more stout and muscular than their more lithe kin. I am just saying that to RP your stats means the physical ones as well and to me it is a deeper character if their description hints at their physical stats because that is how DND works. You don't design a hulk brawny NPC with 8 str and con. PC's should be the same. Besides a stout elf and a stout dwarf are not equal in body type, get what I mean? You don't have to take it to the extreme but subtle hints at physical stats through a description are nice.
Also the way goblins speak isn't necessarily because of low int or wis. It has to do with grasp of common tongue. When speaking goblin it is possible they speak normally in my opinion.
As to Cha relating to physical attractiveness it sort of bugs me. Physical attractiveness is relative and hard to quantify without trying to force someone to see your character as "attractive". However we all know people who regardless of their looks just seem able to make friends with anyone, and are well liked. That to me is Charisma. Charisma is more mental than physical in my humble opinion which again would be nice to hear which representations the DM team prefers.
Yeah, of course. I mean, an elf will be slightly more slim than a human at 25 con. But both would be somewhat sturdier than 'normal humans'. Same goes with strength.
The goblin thing, well, it kind of is open to interpretation. 14 int, for me, is enough to at least be able to use a different word than 'me'. Like 'I', 'my', etc. Especially as he only knows common and goblin, and not even correct goblin. By language rules, I think he would still have a free language, and know those two well.
//Still, highly opinion, parts of it even going away from pure D&D. also, sorry for my use of pronouns, I'm swapping a bit. I believe you could swap almost every 'he' to 'she' and vice versa. Well, there are certain 'standards' of physical attractiveness. Things like scars or a sqaure face on a woman usually are considered unattractive. Of course, certain people have different tastes, but 'society' (whatever that means) has a standard for what is 'attractive' and what is 'unattractive'. Many people find a generally healthy body attractive. (This sort of kills my argument a bit, but at the same time it proves another thing, I'll talk about that in a second) ('She', because I can relate to that more than 'he', sorry) Then, also if you see someone who you find really beautiful, and are lovestruck, would you be more likely to listen to her? To help her? Perhaps even to remember her out of a group of people you met? You would immediately feel some sort of aura to her. And that aura, and even a certain form of attraction, is charisma. Essentially, someone with a high carisma would just have something about him. You would not even neccessarily be able to quantify what exactly makes him... special. I'd say confidence is charisma as well. If you with someone extremely confident, would you not also feel better in some way. He knows what he's doing. He knows what he wants. Attractiveness, on the other hand, is something that can lead to you having that aura, but it is not neccessarily the same. Someone with average, or slightly above average con and str would appear healthy. You would likely also be more attracted to someone who can at least do simple things, such as not tripping over his own feet. At the same time, some people find different things attractive or unattractive. So attractiveness tends to be based a bit on personality and charisma ( Greek χάρισμα (khárisma), which means "favor freely given" or "gift of grace", Wikipedia (I would like to emphasize the 'grace')), and also on the physical attributes. I'd say from this duality come the idea that so many PCs are in some way 'attractive' in their bio. Charisma likes to use it, because it fits well. But then, most interesting characters would have some sort of spark to them. They are adventurers, from the dark, handsome warrior to the sly thief, there is some form of... well, special something in every character. Which kills my nice definition of charisma, and this whole little text.
tl;dr: Looks have an effect on what people think of you. Charisma is (in my opinion) something that is hard to define. Force of will, socialising skills, and it affects what people think of you, to a huge extent. And this is where the connection between looks and charisma come in: Someone good-looking will appear to be a cooler person. At the same time, someone who has a huge force of will, speaks his opinion, and (appears to) have good arguments will seem much more attractive. So, in a way Charisma -> people tend to like (feel attracted, not even neccessarily sexually, to) you. People feel attracted to you because of your looks -> You appear to be more confident. They put you higher up, because they would like to be like you, both with high cha and high attractiveness.
// I'm not surprised if this is just random rambling, sorry.
my characters with low cha either act like assholes or cough a lot. that's how I rep it.
my wizard lacks total common sense, as well, due to low wisdom.
just remember that a 10 is average, so a -1 or -2 to your mod doesn't make you that stupid/charismatic just less then normal and I wouldn't expect or demand any difference in behavior.
What you're talking about here Wok all works under my personal representation. The way I see it, you can easily represent characters which seem "abnormal". A dictator could be someone absolutely horrible looking, but he has an inspiring presence and people will want to follow his lead because of what he does / how he does it (Lasting Impression/Presence + Leadership). That same dictator could be ugly though (<-- this would be a Hitler, for example). Opposed to that, you can have complete tools whose only charismatic traits are their looks (<-- Paris Hilton maybe? just naming known figures here)
Monstruous races may work differently, though, so I'm not going there.
I think as long as people have a logical / fair way of representing stats, that not having a direct DM guideline is fine. The problem falls when people have no system, they just go for stats because it makes their "builds" stronger, and don't give a damn about roleplaying their character the way they should be roleplayed. Some stats will be roleplayed fine, while others won't (due to them being more abstract or harder to represent - charisma for example).
Charisma, wisdom and intelligence are usually the stats that people fail to play the most. They have philosophers with 8 wisdom, NASA researchers with 13 int and nation leaders with 8 charisma because these stats are mechanically stronger and they don't want to play or show weaknesses and the flaws their characters should normally have.
Well, personally, I'm a bit less puristic, I believe you still can RP a character well, even if the stats come before the personality, especially as in D&D it works the same. You roll stats, then you make your character based on the rolled stats. And yes, I agree, people have problem playing their mental stats. Is it such a huge problem? Yes, the 'powergamers' have low cha. In my experience, most (if not all) I've seen also played low stats in some way. And the 'he's pretty' is usually used upwards, more than downwards, in my experience. People with a high cha try to balance out their high charisma with saying their character is beautiful, partly because playing stats upwards is difficult. And, I personally believe that we do not have anyone in the 5% of humanity (or however much) that has 25 cha OOC.
Then, also important is our skewed epic levels. An epic level is close to a deity. Hell, a level 30 character would be higher level than some of the gods. (I think, don't quote me on that. He's close, at least) And that is just weird. We are not as extreme. It is just like how 100 gp to the beggar is such a huge amount, but a simple home for a week is 25k. We are not completely realistic here. Just because I am stronger than a dragon (str-wise), doesn't mean I would actually be stronger than him IC. The mechanics are a bit skewed.
What you're talking about here Wok all works under my personal representation. The way I see it, you can easily represent characters which seem "abnormal". A dictator could be someone absolutely horrible looking, but he has an inspiring presence and people will want to follow his lead because of what he does / how he does it (Lasting Impression/Presence + Leadership). That same dictator could be ugly though (<-- this would be a Hitler, for example). Opposed to that, you can have complete tools whose only charismatic traits are their looks (<-- Paris Hilton maybe? just naming known figures here)
Monstruous races may work differently, though, so I'm not going there.
I think as long as people have a logical / fair way of representing stats, that not having a direct DM guideline is fine. The problem falls when people have no system, they just go for stats because it makes their "builds" stronger, and don't give a damn about roleplaying their character the way they should be roleplayed. Some stats will be roleplayed fine, while others won't (due to them being more abstract or harder to represent - charisma for example).
Charisma, wisdom and intelligence are usually the stats that people fail to play the most. They have philosophers with 8 wisdom, NASA researchers with 13 int and nation leaders with 8 charisma because these stats are mechanically stronger and they don't want to play or show weaknesses and the flaws their characters should normally have.
if 10 is average and 18 is the pinnacle of natural achievement i don't see a 13 int rocket scientist being a problem.
50% of the npc's in the game are going to have sub 10 scores (since 10 is average) and I don't see people nagging DM's to make sure npc's are spitting/slobbering/whatever it is you think people 'should' do at 8 cha.
if 10 is average and 18 is the pinnacle of natural achievement i don't see a 13 int rocket scientist being a problem.
And that in itself is a problem. The way I explain stats, if you wish to be a NASA researchers (as I said) you'd need more than just "smart", and thus need far more than just 18 int, as you'd need enough to cover the multiple perks and have several "levels" in them. I never had to make a character with so high int that I needed to bother making a chart for them, but it'd probably need to cover how fast your character can learn (ability to adapt), general knowledge, problem solving, creativity, etc.
If you're roleplaying a 13 int character as a rocket scientist, you are failing at roleplaying your character right. Big time. At 18 int, however, you're getting there (but likely won't be the top brain of the room - you'll perform what you do best and let others do tasks they perform best at)
Commie wrote:
50% of the npc's in the game are going to have sub 10 scores (since 10 is average) and I don't see people nagging DM's to make sure npc's are spitting/slobbering/whatever it is you think people 'should' do at 8 cha.
Most NPCs I've interacted with felt right. I have encountered sub 10 charisma NPCs several times, and they did act the way they should. I also assume any npc farmer will have a con and str con that's higher than my Saya. I have met NPCs with incredibly low wisdom too. Heck, if you read the dialogs when you do quests or just talk with npcs, you will have (I assume) fairly accurate representation of what said NPC is supposed to be like stat-wise.
There's no excuse to having all-out min-maxed stats and not roleplaying them, sorry.
P.S. Coughing goes in constitution, it's tied to your health, not charisma. Same for being assholes, that'd go under wisdom and / or intelligence (if you don't understand you need adapt your ways in certain situations ), or just be tied to the character's background and persona. You can be very much be a charismatic asshole of epic scale
Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. It represents actual personal strength, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting.
Tricky thing with CON is that marathon runners have less muscle on their whole body than I've got in one butt cheek, but I suspect few argue they have that as their dump stat.
I do think this is one of those things that's more fun to talk about than it is cause for concern. It's a little grating to see a character be a cheerfully well adjusted regular person when you know to 99% certainty that they're Genasi wth Devastating Dodge Reduction or whatever and have a 12 score for both WIS and CHA. As in 'combined'. It grates if you're like me and inflict the RP downsides of that spread on yourself, because often it's a real pain in the arse.
Case in point: I was logged into a 6CHA chap yesterday when the aforementioned new player logged on and partied up. He was needing ICly shown round the bosses, and while Nguza would in mechanical terms have been a perfectly good running mate, I swapped to Ruce immediately, cause getting Nguza to say all the things needing said would literally have taken the whole reset, and I couldn't face the frustration for myself or him.
In slot of other contexts he's fun to play precisely because of this, so it's not even a constant grate - you're missing on the partial fun, CHA-dodgers!
And that in itself is a problem. The way I explain stats, if you wish to be a NASA researchers (as I said) you'd need more than just "smart", and thus need far more than just 18 int, as you'd need enough to cover the multiple perks and have several "levels" in them. I never had to make a character with so high int that I needed to bother making a chart for them, but it'd probably need to cover how fast your character can learn (ability to adapt), general knowledge, problem solving, creativity, etc.
18's the natural human limit.
Quote:
If you're roleplaying a 13 int character as a rocket scientist, you are failing at roleplaying your character right. Big time. At 18 int, however, you're getting there (but likely won't be the top brain of the room - you'll perform what you do best and let others do tasks they perform best at)
that's a negative. you don't have to be some hyper genius to work in a field, you just might have to work a little harder to get there.
Quote:
I have encountered sub 10 charisma NPCs several times, and they did act the way they should.
So they acted average? that stood out to you?
Quote:
P.S. Coughing goes in constitution, it's tied to your health, not charisma.
The basic range of abilities for humans is 3 to 18, though other kinds of creatures (or humans using magic or with other bonuses) can go above and beyond this; see the lists of example creatures for each ability score for some comparable creatures at each range of ability. So, a human with an 18 Strength is as strong as a minotaur, and one with a 6 Intelligence is as dumb as an ogre.
Joined: 22 Jul 2015 Location: Lincolnshire, United Kingdom
... but what is the bench mark, who is to say what is right? Problem with a points based system is that it doesn't take into account the small details. A human will likely find an elf attractive even if they have a low cha which gives them an arrogant personality while leaving them looking pretty... however a dwarf by rights would likely dislike the elven appearance even if the elf has a high cha. It isn't just about playing the numbers.
Someone could have a lower int score than the next person BUT personal experience within a field could give them a higher and greater understanding of a specific thing than the person with a higher int. Just because your numbers say you're smart doesn't mean you know everything hence why NASA has people in departments that know specific things rather than one person that knows everything!
_________________ When it rains, look for rainbows. When it's dark, look for stars.
And that in itself is a problem. The way I explain stats, if you wish to be a NASA researchers (as I said) you'd need more than just "smart", and thus need far more than just 18 int, as you'd need enough to cover the multiple perks and have several "levels" in them. I never had to make a character with so high int that I needed to bother making a chart for them, but it'd probably need to cover how fast your character can learn (ability to adapt), general knowledge, problem solving, creativity, etc.
18's the natural human limit.
Quote:
P.S. Coughing goes in constitution, it's tied to your health, not charisma.
Oh yeah? Elaborate. I sit on 24ish con.
18's the max as your starting stat, but you can get your base much higher than that through leveling..
As for con, if you have 24 base con on a character, and you're making him cough / sick / be in bad health, it needs a good explanation. Charisma is not "coughing", health issues are tied to constitution, not charisma.
Uberuce wrote:
Tricky thing with CON is that marathon runners have less muscle on their whole body than I've got in one butt cheek, but I suspect few argue they have that as their dump stat
Low strength, high constitution. Way I see it, muscles are more tied to strength than it is to constitution. Con we're talking stamina, health, thickness of bones, thickness of skin, endurance to pain, etc. High strength vs high con is the difference between a body-builder and a marathon runner. Boxers / mix martial arts would probably require both, sumo wrestlers I'm not exactly sure where they fall
I somehow assume high str gives a synergy bonus to con, and high con gives a synergy bonus to str
As for con, if you have 24 base con on a character, and you're making him cough / sick / be in bad health, it needs a good explanation. Charisma is not "coughing", health issues are tied to constitution, not charisma.
We'll just have to agree to disagree here.
Someone with 8 cha might just have learned to consciously behave better/more proper/more appropriate and then appear normal or better then normal, because their life circumstances demanded it. If they are consciously remembering not to fart in public and whatnot, they could have 8 or 6 cha, and you'd never know. Whereas a person with 18 cha doesn't have to have the extra mental step.
Same with int, someone with lower int might just have to study harder or use more notes. But neither of those things would be apparent at all ig.
Either way I don't like this topic. Telling people they 'have' to act a specific way because of numbers is bad.
Yes, commie. Wizards might have said that. My personal take (and one the server has taken for a bit, in my experience) is that while we are playing on D&D rules, some things are not perfect. So, homebrew comes in. Our characters always have scores above 18, without any magic. I'd say for that reason, the numbers fail as well.
Also, Savant syndrome? (The most dramatic examples of savant syndrome occur in individuals who score very low on IQ tests, while demonstrating exceptional skills or brilliance in specific areas, such as rapid calculation (hypercalculia), art, memory, or musical ability. Wikipedia) Low int, yet incredible on certain intelligence stats. (Pretty sure calculation is intelligence based) Then, yes, like was pointed out, experience can do that as well. (One of the reasons I like The Dark Eye more in certain fields, you aren't limited to one stat every four levels, but dictated by RP, not that it would work in an online setting) You can, out of experience, know things people might only with a high int. I remember when I was young (well, I am now, still... when I was in 2nd grade) people used to challenge my intelligence by asking what 99 times 99 was. At some point, you learn that by heart. 9801. Yes, I know how to caculate it, but I know that particular number by heart. Someone asks me to calculate something quickly, chooses exactly that, and I seem like I am incredibly fast at calculating. Seems like an indicator for high int, but it's not.
Technically, arrogance would be more of trait of high charisma, than low, because it is basically over-heightened self-confidence. And self-confidence is cha. At least it would seem like that to me. Or not having anything to do with cha.
Commie wrote:
Either way I don't like this topic. Telling people they 'have' to act a specific way because of numbers is bad.
Here, I have to agree. Especially if you are not a DM, who are you to judge my character? Even if you are a DM, it's difficult enough, because you don't get to know all of my character, and usually have no idea behind my thoughts for the character.
1)Someone with 8 cha might just have learned to consciously behave better/more proper/more appropriate and then appear normal or better then normal, because their life circumstances demanded it. If they are consciously remembering not to fart in public and whatnot, they could have 8 or 6 cha, and you'd never know. Whereas a person with 18 cha doesn't have to have the extra mental step.
2)Either way I don't like this topic. Telling people they 'have' to act a specific way because of numbers is bad.
[/quote]
1) You can have 100 charisma and have a complete lack of ethic, because that is the realm of wisdom, not charisma. You can fart and be completely inapropriate in public with a character that's got low OR high charisma. It falls under "common sense" that farting in public will make others look bad on you and thus needs to be hidden, or avoided.. or if you have low wisdom and high charisma, you won't have too much trouble putting the blame on the low charisma guy and convince people that he's the one who farted.
2) That's the very core basic of dungeons and dragons, which is what Nwn is based off of <.< There's usually even a DM to police players and reward them appropriately if they act the way they should. If you don't, they might not invite you next time (if they care about roleplay, that is).
Personally, I think it's a very interesting subject because it is mostly a needed one. Do I think all players fail at this? No, of course not! But I think there's cases where it'd be nice if classes and stats were taken into account for more than just "I want to be strong rawwrrrrr". It's a roleplay server, and stats and classes are part of that representation of your character. They're not just means to a powergaming end. I mean, try and argue with the snowbeast that you hit him for 200 damage with your dagger despite having +2 to AB, not having rolled a crit and being level 3. These numbers have meaning, too, but luckily the game handles them for you - and no matter how much you argue, snowbeast won't be stabbed for 200 dmg by your lvl 3 character.
Joined: 01 May 2009 Location: GMT-8 Bangor, Washington
Commie wrote:
Either way I don't like this topic. Telling people they 'have' to act a specific way because of numbers is bad.
Agreed. People try to make it way too basic, focus too much on individual stats not enough on the way stats can play off each other to create more dynamic or different types of people.
_________________ Sir Taelar Ardelyn of Wiltun Winner of the Razor Tongued Award 2015!
Either way I don't like this topic. Telling people they 'have' to act a specific way because of numbers is bad.
Here, I have to agree. Especially if you are not a DM, who are you to judge my character? Even if you are a DM, it's difficult enough, because you don't get to know all of my character, and usually have no idea behind my thoughts for the character.
This is the whole point, if the DM's expect us to RP our negative stats a certain way it would be nice to know. If they just want us to RP our negative stats anyway we want, that should also be known. If the announcement is no longer pertinent can we get rid of it?
Well, you should RP your stats, including the negative ones. At the same time, (and here my opinion hops in) you can not police other people if you do not have all the info on the character. Is there perhaps a reason why he behaves in a certain way, despite his stats? I mean, some people might say Farija is weird, for always introducing herself with her complete full name. Just wait until she has titles to flaunt as well. It wouldn't exactly be arrogance, but simply culture. A different person might flaunt his titles simply because he feels like it boosts his ego. Same effect, different reason. I think it is the same with stats. There are reasons behind my characters.
Would examples be good? Likely. At the same time, examples are that: examples. Just because one DM said something was a certain way, does not mean a different way is neccessarily wrong. So, personally, if anything, I'd change the announcement to not say it will be updated soon, or actually update it soon.
Just now it's occured to me that I treat the modifier as something akin to standard deviations on a bell curve rather than anything linear. A modifier of +/- 1 is much, much further away from average than a mod of 8 is compared to 10, even though that's numerically twice the gap.
I personally am entirely comfy being judgemental as shit about other people's RP and them doing the same to mine in return, or ,(as is much more likely) barely even noticing it exists. This is because we're playing Let's Pretend, not curing cancer.
Letum's post is still valid it merely implies that you should RP what is on your character sheet or whatever we approved next to that (classes, feats, classes, PRCs).
I generally make people roll int or wis if they get to the point when those stats could prove as a factor. Also when a dude with 8 int RPs himself as a genius then we generally raise questions. Especially when someone uses the subrace modifiers that would bring them to 6 in one of the abilities. That is not something that we like because a -3 factor is quite critical in the case of ability points.
But to give a few example here:
Negative int: NWN mechanism already states that with 8 intelligence you have trouble talking, I woulds say forming complex comprehensive thoughts. With 9 intelligence you can talk but you have problems with reading and writing, or you are a functional analphabet. When you come across with some more complex literature, you simply won't be able to understand even if you can read it. 6 is really bad...
Negative wis: "Look out, the cave is about to collapse!" *said everyone else but the duder with negative wis* "Ooooh we still have time to get in and get the treasure!" #famouslastsentences 6 is really bad....
Negative charisma: Let me give an elf example. Elf girls are pretty or beautiful regardless of their charisma. However, a wild elf girl may be someone who is beautiful but not charismatic, because she has anxiety in company that makes her body language a bit weird and she is losing on the hot&crazy scale. While a moon elf who is equally beautiful but dressing in proper fashion, her feminine mannerism come naturally and so does her social behavior would imply high charisma. Learned mannerism (such as the previousy mentioned do not fart in public or pic your nose) is an INT based issue while the Charisma based mannerism is more about the social instincts that is based on empathy. How quickly you adapt to any kind of environment based on your natural ability. With negative charisma all your learned mannerism will become clear...that you learned it but it isn't yours necessarily or (if it is well practiced) that it is not necessarily your number 1 priority. The impression that you generate in social interactions may be less convincing in general unless you developed respective skills in that area (bluff, persuade etc).
6 charisma is also bad....
Negative con, str, dex do not need explanation because it is pretty clear what do they stand for (and I'm too lazy to write more...it's Easter).
*by bad I mean that it requires more than some skill to RP a stat that stands at 6 thus -3 modifier.
_________________ Lord Hector Sylgerand Glendil Fettian, the black bard
Either way I don't like this topic. Telling people they 'have' to act a specific way because of numbers is bad.
Agreed. People try to make it way too basic, focus too much on individual stats not enough on the way stats can play off each other to create more dynamic or different types of people.
Either way I don't like this topic. Telling people they 'have' to act a specific way because of numbers is bad.
Agreed. People try to make it way too basic, focus too much on individual stats not enough on the way stats can play off each other to create more dynamic or different types of people.
This.
Nobody denied the existence of ability or skill synergy. It especially applies to STR, Dex or Con. You cannot be an acrobat without some degree of muscle, nor can you have superhuman endurance without muscles. Same reason why a persuade skill could contribute to a bluff skill. Or trap setting to trap removal and could go on there. But this is also a game and it is framed within quantifiable rules. That is part of the game.
We are not enforcing it terribly only to the degree of a common sense. The same way that you cannot RP that you are using a paladin ability if your character sheet shows a pure lvl 30 barbarian. Also, if you have a wizard with 8 STR you cannot describe it as a Hercules.
_________________ Lord Hector Sylgerand Glendil Fettian, the black bard
Joined: 11 Jan 2013 Location: Riding the flow of the wind!
I think you should absolutely roleplay your stats!! With that said, I think low scores shouldn't always be represented the same way. Charisma in particular is a tricky stat because it's much more than just physical attractiveness or just force of personality. If we listen to the game, we are 100% locked even with those stats, but I think It's really bad to play that way!
Physical traits are easy, but the others in my opinion can be a mix of things.
When I make a character I do something like this:
The low score has to be represented some way.
If a score is low, manifest at least one trait accordingly. (Physically weak, gullible, perhaps a lack of common sense, lack of empathy...) If a score is high, manifest at least one trait accordingly (Strong, nimble, clever, attractive...)
I think It'd be silly to streamline 'mental stats' to the point where a Sorcerer has to be a walking god/goddess in terms of beauty or that fighters aren't allowed to be beautiful.
Beauty by itself is also subjective. If a red dragonblood who happens to be a Bard (with Charisma) shows up near Lyraesel, there is no way that I will have her think they are 'beautiful' in any way. Intimidating yes, but never beautiful.
A DM should just edit out the last line in that announcement, as it really stands on its own. Easy peasy.
The examples were more to be pedantic and explicit, but really aren't necessary because of the free range that is given to players to interpret how their negative modifiers should be played. People can offer suggestions all day about how -2 or -4 (!) Charisma (for example) might manifest itself, the point the of the post (as mentioned) wasn't to give any hard rulings on how it must - simply to remind people that the numbers and their implications are taken into account with RP considerations. And to do so in a space with a hyperfocus on numbers for building, where it can be easy to get carried away with the crunch at the expense of what consequences that may have for RP. Positive stats are also taken into account, but the reason that isn't something mentioned is because people rarely if ever need encouragement or reminders to play up their power stats - they do need them for their dump stats.
The reason examples weren't posted shortly following, IIRC, was probably due to more immediate concern issues that required the team's attention, and since finishing the examples wasn't high priority, it simply fell off the wayside and we moved on whatever the next fire was at the time. Mea culpa.
Also, this isn't in reply to anyone except the OP. I just noticed that the post above mine also used Charisma as an example, and I didn't want to be misconstrued as if I was responding directly to that given the context.
Though not perfect and certainly not DM approved on Amia, I did find a chart that seems to pretty well show some guide for roleplaying positive and negative statistics.
**Please note: I am only posting this to help, this is not a rule***
Strength 1 (–5): Morbidly weak, has significant trouble lifting own limbs 2-3 (–4): Needs help to stand, can be knocked over by strong breezes 4-5 (–3): Knocked off balance by swinging something dense 6-7 (–2): Difficulty pushing an object of their weight 8-9 (–1): Has trouble even lifting heavy objects 10-11 (0): Can literally pull their own weight 12-13 (1): Carries heavy objects for short distances 14-15 (2): Visibly toned, throws small objects for long distances 16-17 (3): Carries heavy objects with one arm 18-19 (4): Can break objects like wood with bare hands 20-21 (5): Able to out-wrestle a work animal or catch a falling person 22-23 (6): Can pull very heavy objects at appreciable speeds 24-25 (7): Pinnacle of brawn, able to out-lift several people Dexterity 1 (–5): Barely mobile, probably significantly paralyzed 2-3 (–4): Incapable of moving without noticeable effort or pain 4-5 (–3): Visible paralysis or physical difficulty 6-7 (–2): Significant klutz or very slow to react 8-9 (–1): Somewhat slow, occasionally trips over own feet 10-11 (0): Capable of usually catching a small tossed object 12-13 (1): Able to often hit large targets 14-15 (2): Can catch or dodge a medium-speed surprise projectile 16-17 (3): Able to often hit small targets 18-19 (4): Light on feet, able to often hit small moving targets 20-21 (5): Graceful, able to flow from one action into another easily 22-23 (6): Very graceful, capable of dodging a number of thrown objects 24-25 (7): Moves like water, reacting to all situations with almost no effort Constitution 1 (–5): Minimal immune system, body reacts violently to anything foreign 2-3 (–4): Frail, suffers frequent broken bones 4-5 (–3): Bruises very easily, knocked out by a light punch 6-7 (–2): Unusually prone to disease and infection 8-9 (–1): Easily winded, incapable of a full day’s hard labor 10-11 (0): Occasionally contracts mild sicknesses 12-13 (1): Can take a few hits before being knocked unconscious 14-15 (2): Able to labor for twelve hours most days 16-17 (3): Easily shrugs off most illnesses 18-19 (4): Able to stay awake for days on end 20-21 (5): Very difficult to wear down, almost never feels fatigue 22-23 (6): Never gets sick, even to the most virulent diseases 24-25 (7): Tireless paragon of physical endurance Intelligence 1 (–5): Animalistic, no longer capable of logic or reason 2-3 (–4): Barely able to function, very limited speech and knowledge 4-5 (–3): Often resorts to charades to express thoughts 6-7 (–2): Often misuses and mispronounces words 8-9 (–1): Has trouble following trains of thought, forgets most unimportant things 10-11 (0): Knows what they need to know to get by 12-13 (1): Knows a bit more than is necessary, fairly logical 14-15 (2): Able to do math or solve logic puzzles mentally with reasonable accuracy 16-17 (3): Fairly intelligent, able to understand new tasks quickly 18-19 (4): Very intelligent, may invent new processes or uses for knowledge 20-21 (5): Highly knowledgeable, probably the smartest person many people know 22-23 (6): Able to make Holmesian leaps of logic 24-25 (7): Famous as a sage and genius Wisdom 1 (–5): Seemingly incapable of thought, barely aware 2-3 (–4): Rarely notices important or prominent items, people, or occurrences 4-5 (–3): Seemingly incapable of forethought 6-7 (–2): Often fails to exert common sense 8-9 (–1): Forgets or opts not to consider options before taking action 10-11 (0): Makes reasoned decisions most of the time 12-13 (1): Able to tell when a person is upset 14-15 (2): Can get hunches about a situation that doesn’t feel right 16-17 (3): Reads people and situations fairly well 18-19 (4): Often used as a source of wisdom or decider of actions 20-21 (5): Reads people and situations very well, almost unconsciously 22-23 (6): Can tell minute differences among many situations 24-25 (7): Nearly prescient, able to reason far beyond logic Charisma 1 (–5): Barely conscious, probably acts heavily autistic 2-3 (–4): Minimal independent thought, relies heavily on others to think instead 4-5 (–3): Has trouble thinking of others as people 6-7 (–2): Terribly reticent, uninteresting, or rude 8-9 (–1): Something of a bore or makes people mildly uncomfortable 10-11 (0): Capable of polite conversation 12-13 (1): Mildly interesting, knows what to say to the right people 14-15 (2): Interesting, knows what to say to most people 16-17 (3): Popular, receives greetings and conversations on the street 18-19 (4): Immediately likeable by many people, subject of favorable talk 20-21 (5): Life of the party, able to keep people entertained for hours 22-23 (6): Immediately likeable by almost everybody 24-25 (7): Renowned for wit, personality, and/or looks
Then.. the next conundrum. When taking a stat into account, do we use the actual unbuffed ungeared number or the one with gear and enchants? Or, if you wear gear all the time, do we just use that number? If so, that opens a whole new can of worms, so I'm curious what others think.
Joined: 14 Dec 2009 Location: The Dark Side of the Moon
That Guy wrote:
When taking a stat into account, do we use the actual unbuffed ungeared number or the one with gear and enchants? Or, if you wear gear all the time, do we just use that number? If so, that opens a whole new can of worms, so I'm curious what others think.
If I'm asked to make a dice roll, I make the roll with whatever gear/buffs are already on my character, I don't swap stuff for a better modifier. Meaning, the gear/buffs affect the ability stats for exactly that reason, to improve them, so yes, I go with the numbers that the character sheet reflects at that time.
To give an example, and some insight into Crow, he is quite wise most of the time, but in combat not nearly so much, thus some of his decisions reflect that with my RP. It's fun because it goes along with his low charisma, and some of the reactions i get from other characters are priceless. lol
Then.. the next conundrum. When taking a stat into account, do we use the actual unbuffed ungeared number or the one with gear and enchants? Or, if you wear gear all the time, do we just use that number? If so, that opens a whole new can of worms, so I'm curious what others think.
The chart you posted is taken from the link that I put in the OP. Which is what I was asking for clarification. The post made it seem like the DM team had a specific idea of how negative stats should be played hence why it stated they would be posting examples. This thread has since clarified at least so far that the DM team just wants us to RP them in some way and there is a lot of leeway offered in how to do such. Thus no one can claim you MUST RP your stats this way. You just have to explain your stats in your RP which is a perfect answer and why I personally like the server.
The second part of your comment is another question I had. Does the DM team consider base stats or geared/buffed stats? I was under the impression base stats were what mattered most. This one hasn't been answered as clearly at least in my opinion.
For Clarification: I remember reading in an old DND book somewhere that base stats were different than geared stats because an Orc with 8 Charisma wearing robes that gave +4 Charisma, was still an Orc. Just a nicely dressed one or something to that effect.
Heh, sorry, been reading this thread over the past several days/week or so and forgot you posted the link.
And... IMHO, your stats/skills/saves with gear/enchantment is what I use. I mean... why use gear if you can't use it for dice rolls? To me, it's all part of the character, whether it's natural or geared, I mean... my character really doesn't know that his STR is 26 or that with gear it's 38. That applies to any stat or skill. Sure, ICly they know it adds to whatever, but... ehh, I think we're overthinking it all. I'd rather just have fun so long as I'm not exaggerating my stats in my roleplay and not hurting anyone else.
Heh, sorry, been reading this thread over the past several days/week or so and forgot you posted the link.
And... IMHO, your stats/skills/saves with gear/enchantment is what I use. I mean... why use gear if you can't use it for dice rolls? To me, it's all part of the character, whether it's natural or geared, I mean... my character really doesn't know that his STR is 26 or that with gear it's 38. That applies to any stat or skill. Sure, ICly they know it adds to whatever, but... ehh, I think we're overthinking it all. I'd rather just have fun so long as I'm not exaggerating my stats in my roleplay and not hurting anyone else.
I just more meant then negative stats literally mean nothing if we are talking geared and buffed stats. With an 8 boom drink a potion no negative. With a 6 a potion could still fix it or a potion and one item. That's why I thought it was base stats. Could a DM clarify?
Does the DM team consider base stats or geared/buffed stats? I was under the impression base stats were what mattered most. This one hasn't been answered as clearly at least in my opinion.
FWIW from a former DM: When it comes to most forum Requests, your base Ability scores are all that matter. Skills are also usually referred in terms of base Ranks, but there was sometimes flex room with Skills depending on the kind of Request.
For some, there might be allowance of the total Skill number you can reach when fully optimized with your owned gear and buffs: situations like this aren't common and were typically things like requesting info with a tricked out Lore, or the like. If you have the time, it can be assumed your PC is doing whatever they are doing for the request with ideal preparation. For stuff like that, players usually included a screenie of a skill roll IG with all their buffs going. In my observation as both player and DM, this was mainly for "RP Skills" like Lore and Craft Weapon/Armor. I don't recall this being usual or really accepted for Abilities.
When it comes to IG stuff, it depends. But typically I'd use current numbers. If you want to persuade that NPC, go ahead and drink that Eagle's Splendor potion and slip on your Charisma and Persuasion rings, sure (ideally not in front of them though) that's smart, get whatever edge you can.
If someone wanted to win a debate about how to Lift The Best, I'd favor the character who has the naturally higher applicable stat, because they live Lifting more all the time rather than the person who has to chug a potion and gear swap to achieve the same or better performance. (On a more practical level, this means if two characters were trying to figure out a solution, I'd very likely end up giving the better hint or answer to the one with the better relevent base scores, because experience matters as well as talent/skill. Again, it depends, as context matters - but as a general operational notion, I look at which character is innately better and adjust from there as warranted.)
Since it was mentioned, as far as IG gear swapping, I didn't personally mind as long as there was some kind of emote about it and there was reasonably the time to do so during more narrative scenes I'd run for people. So like, if someone was going to swap armor, there would've needed to be the time/conditions for that to happen, but honestly it never came up. Small things heing swapped, ring, belts, gloves, helmets, whatever, those are minor actions anyway, and while it can be monitored and enforced if necessary for the scene, all I really cared about was that players mentioned it because I preferred things to have a visible story component rather than just OOC advantage. All that said, most of the time people in my scenes DID emote that kind of stuff, and I never had any issues with people 'abusing' gear swapping, and the few times I specifically mentioned that people shouldn't swap their foot slot unless they take the time to pause and RP it out (due to the conditions going on) I didn't have any problems with people 'cheating'.
When it comes to most forum Requests, your base Ability scores are all that matter.
yup. thats why my feytouched sorc's bio begins with
Quote:
This feytouched has 32 base cha (+5 great cha) so they are the most beautiful person you have ever seen.
except I think 'only base score matters' is dumb so I don't do that. I won't be posting facetiously about orcas and krackens again so im just going to say that RPing low mentals is a really dumb thing to 'force.'
but if we want to go all contraposition here and I have to RP my 6 cha, then is it ok for me to call out wizards who come up with stupid ideas for not RPing their stats because someone with >16 int wouldn't say/do something so stupid? Or question the total lack of common sense on a wis character?
I just more meant then negative stats literally mean nothing if we are talking geared and buffed stats. With an 8 boom drink a potion no negative. With a 6 a potion could still fix it or a potion and one item. That's why I thought it was base stats. Could a DM clarify?
They count in the instance when you use them. The base stats mostly apply when you intend to use the ability to contribute to something that would require longer investment such as knowledge of languages, history etc. You definitely won't learn those things by drinking a fox cunning potion or by wearing a few int gear (Before you ask...not that we enforce the amount of languages a PC would know terribly but if someone with 0 int modifier and 0 lore and speaks 9 languages then we might ask the "how?" question). However, in the instance where you use the spell you might be able to remember better or form more complex thoughts by using them or wearing gear.
The other parts (as Letum said) where the base modifier counts are the requests or general long term character projects.
_________________ Lord Hector Sylgerand Glendil Fettian, the black bard
It seems this place is even more laid back than myself and others originally thought when it comes to RPing your stats. Not that it is a bad thing. Thanks for the clarification. Cleared up quite a bit of confusion where certain players feel X should be done this way and others felt x should be done this way. Much appreciated.
I just more meant then negative stats literally mean nothing if we are talking geared and buffed stats. With an 8 boom drink a potion no negative. With a 6 a potion could still fix it or a potion and one item. That's why I thought it was base stats. Could a DM clarify?
The base stats mostly apply when you intend to use the ability to contribute to something that would require longer investment such as knowledge of languages, history etc. You definitely won't learn those things by drinking a fox cunning potion or by wearing a few int gear
i mean, pitt always uses 2 extra sources for wisdom, are you telling me I need to manually do my base wisdom when I roll for a wisdom check and not the +8 score im getting from spellz?
Nope, not for everyday rp and events, they mean for requests and other long term investments, only your base stat would count. But, "roll wis", you can use the geared/enchanted score.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum
FAQ
Search
Login
), or just be tied to the character's background and persona. You can be very much be a charismatic asshole of epic scale 
