Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 1538338" data-attributes="member: 5171">1) I was with you up until "or give extremely minor bonuses".  Second-guessing the DM on whether your roleplaying should get you a +2 or a +4 is not really something we can help you with.  We can say how we'd modify the DC in a certain situation, but it's going to be different in every game.2) Bad DM.  He's not actually playing by the rules specifically laid down in the book.3) Not playing by the rules laid down in the book, unless there are circumstances that you, as a player, are not aware of (ie, finding the bar requires chatting up the locals, since this town is a virtual maze of narrow streets).4) Bad DM.5) Bad DM.6) Bad DM.So far, you've gotten me to agree that the DMs you saw were bad DMs.  They were probably bad DMs back in earlier editions, too.Aha.  This helps.See, these complaints boil down to either "I'm roleplaying a combat-rogue but playing a fighter" or "I have a bad DM".1 and 2) No.  Assuming that you used Point Buy, you had the choice of where to put your ability scores, and you had the choice of what class to take.  You chose whether to make your character:a) The witty, bantering, fast-talking guy who is pretty good with a bladeb) A character who doesn't have much of a way with people, but who is the best swordsmen in the world at his levelIf you built your character for b) (High Strength, high Dex, high Con, low Int, low Cha), it is only logical and reasonable that you aren't as good with people as the guy who built his character for a) (Medium Strength, High Dex, average Con, Good Int, Good Charisma) would be.If this is really a problem for you, then one of three things is true:- You have built your character in such a way that it is a poor reflection of the personality concept you wish to roleplay- Your character is too low in level for the concept you wish to roleplay- Your DM is setting the DCs in such a way that anything less than max'd out ranks is useless.The first one is your problem.  The second is a difference in campaign choices, which involves all the players.  The third is a problem that many new DMs have.3) New skills?  Where?  I pretty much stick to the core books, and the core books say, "Try not to add new skills.  Try to make the existing skills work in new situations."  If your character concept is, say, a synthetic gem-maker, and you've been doing that with Craft, and then suddenly a supplement comes out with "Make Synthetic Gems" as a skill, you should ask your DM if you can move some or all of those Craft ranks over into the new skill.4) Take 10.  You can do it with skills just about any time except in combat.5) Then you should either get a high enough Intelligence to buy a lot of cross-class skills, get feats that improve your use of those skills, or multiclass into a class that gets access those skills.  This is similar to 1 and 2, above.  Or, if multiclassing is not an option for you for some reason, petition your DM to play a variant character class -- ask your DM if your fighter can lose Climb, Jump, and Craft and gain Bluff and Diplomacy as class skills, for a more swashbucklery Fighter variant.No.  According to the rules, no.  You might think you're slamming 3.x D&D, but you're really slamming bad DMs.  You need to make a Diplomacy check when trying to change somebody's attitude, or when the DM feels that it's an important enough encounter to merit a check to see how the person's attitude should change.  You need to make a Sense Motive check when somebody attempts to bluff you, and if the bluff is ludicrous, you get a +30 bonus on your Sense Motive check.This is, I believe, an inaccurate argument.  Nobody here is against roleplaying.  Nobody here is against players being funny and creative.  Nobody here is against encouraging players to be funny and creative.  However, there's a difference between "being against roleplaying" and "forcing you to purchase the skills and abilities to do something if you want your character to be able to do it".  Where have you seen this?  You're describing bad DMs.  I'm sorry if that's been your experience.  That's a bummer of an experience.  I've had those experiences with 2nd Edition and 1st Edition DMs.  This is not entirely unlike getting shot with a blue arrow and deciding that the real problem here is that blue things are fundamentally bad.  The real problem is not which edition the DM was using -- the real problem was that, by what you've described here, you've got a bummer of a DM.Now, the question of how much roleplaying should count is always tricky, and it's going to vary from DM to DM.  A player who thinks creatively should get a chance to do something special, sure.  But it sounds a lot like you want the benefits of a high charisma and a lot of ranks in social interaction scores without actually spending the points to get them.  If you're all about the roleplaying, then you should have no problem making your fighter a bit less combat-effective by using some of his feats to boost skills instead of get combat abilities -- or by giving him a level or two of rogue in order to get some skills to accurately reflect your character concept -- or by purchasing some skills cross-class, or petitioning the DM for the chance to play a variant class who loses something in order to get something else.</blockquote>

Verification