13 replies to this topic

[vilkacis]

Original topic: Dalayna romance mod

How much charisma does it take to commune with trees?

Have you ever tried to hold a tree's attention when there's a slender young birch standing a stone's throw away?

Hmm. What next, hilarious stick figure pictures? (I hope).

Nope!

Spoiler

NEVAR!

...I'm telling you. Won't happen.

I wouldn't worry about the low charisma affecting people wanting to take her along. Kivan's got 9, I think, and his romance is one of the most popular out there.

Yeah. The character's CHA and the players' like or dislike for them rarely relate. For instance, Minsc is hugely popular with the players and has a CHA of 9. Aerie has 14 and is considerably less popular.

(I think the most important thing to consider is that we enjoy Minsc's antics from a distance, while everyone he actually interacts with probably gets a little tired of RODENTS OF JUSTICE! BUTTKICKING after a few hours. Kivan may be popular with the players, but he's not a great source of inspiration to people around him since he only has average charisma.)

I think Kivan had 9 because he was a silent, brooding type with occassional grumpy outburts (in BG anyway...) rather than because he was unappealing.

But a CHA of 9 means you're not supposed to be silent and brooding in a particularly appealing manner. (The fact that there are people who'll like anyone who happens to be silent and brooding doesn't change this fact. )

Edited by vilkacis, 14 July 2008 - 04:21 PM.

[Crazee]

Hmm. What next, hilarious stick figure pictures? (I hope).

Nope!

Spoiler

NEVAR!

...I'm telling you. Won't happen.

Eep?

I wouldn't worry about the low charisma affecting people wanting to take her along. Kivan's got 9, I think, and his romance is one of the most popular out there.

Yeah. The character's CHA and the players' like or dislike for them rarely relate. For instance, Minsc is hugely popular with the players and has a CHA of 9. Aerie has 14 and is considerably less popular.

(I think the most important thing to consider is that we enjoy Minsc's antics from a distance, while everyone he actually interacts with probably gets a little tired of RODENTS OF JUSTICE! BUTTKICKING after a few hours. Kivan may be popular with the players, but he's not a great source of inspiration to people around him since he only has average charisma.)

To be fair, useful as that ability score list is, it isn't really too reliable. Minsc's 6/7/8 wisdom, for instance, from what we see of him in the game is more in line with "05. - Impaired in a minor fashion." or even "04. - Impaired in a major fashion.". I'd say Kivan's charisma is a bit below the human average.

And Jarley, trust me, those pictures are works of art next to my pathetic attempts. It's nice to be able to put a name to a face.

Edited by Crazee, 14 July 2008 - 12:49 PM.

[vilkacis]

Since that list is canon, you will need to point to another official source backing your opinion if you want to argue against it.

However, that doesn't mean Bioware's characters are perfect. Several of them may very well be statted out in a way that doesn't exactly mesh with how their personality is written. Viconia and Cernd having 18 WIS, for instance, and we certainly don't see Edwin make effective use of that 18 INT. It's quite possible that Minsc's mental attributes are too high, but if so, the fault lies with the writer who didn't understand what the numbers are supposed to represent.

Anyway, Kivan apparently has 8 CHA, not 9 as previously stated in this topic, which means he is indeed intended to be somewhat below average.

[Azkyroth]

Since that list is canon, you will need to point to another official source backing your opinion if you want to argue against it.

However, that doesn't mean Bioware's characters are perfect. Several of them may very well be statted out in a way that doesn't exactly mesh with how their personality is written. Viconia and Cernd having 18 WIS, for instance, and we certainly don't see Edwin make effective use of that 18 INT. It's quite possible that Minsc's mental attributes are too high, but if so, the fault lies with the writer who didn't understand what the numbers are supposed to represent.

Anyway, Kivan apparently has 8 CHA, not 9 as previously stated in this topic, which means he is indeed intended to be somewhat below average.

I dunno; Edwin mostly keeps to himself but he's written very much like a high-INT, low-WIS character. (If anything, his WIS stat is too high for his writing, though). (Also, Viconia has 17 WIS, and I've written about Cernd's wisdom vs. his writing previously).

Also, keep in mind that elves have less body hair than humans and elves have no body hair at all are apparently BOTH canon. When we can't rely on the books agreeing with themselves or each other, we might as well just try to make sense of it on our own.

Back on topic: Jarley, any thoughts on a revised stat set? (My advice would actually be to, rather than looking too much at other NPCs for comparison in terms of balance, go through the stats and rationalize each in terms of her background and how you imagine the character. I'll PM you an example that I did with Arkalian).

[vilkacis]

I dunno; Edwin mostly keeps to himself but he's written very much like a high-INT, low-WIS character. (If anything, his WIS stat is too high for his writing, though).

I'm not saying he seems stupid, just that he really isn't shown accomplishing anything brilliant enough to make me guess that he's really supposed to be that clever. (But I can easily say the same about any character with high INT... except maybe Jan.)

Viconia has 17 WIS

It's 18 in BG2.

I've written about Cernd's wisdom vs. his writing previously

I have the same problem with him as with Edwin. He may actually be intended to be that wise, but if I had been asked to read a bunch of his dialogues and take a guess at his supposed WIS, I certainly wouldn't have said 18.

Also, keep in mind that elves have less body hair than humans and elves have no body hair at all are apparently BOTH canon. When we can't rely on the books agreeing with themselves or each other, we might as well just try to make sense of it on our own.

True, but as long as there is only one official source and no conflicting information, I don't really see what the problem is.

[Miloch]

Anyway, Kivan apparently has 8 CHA, not 9 as previously stated in this topic, which means he is indeed intended to be somewhat below average.

Not sure where this started, but the average stat range is 9-12, so it's only a shade below average, like 13 is only marginally above. I think we're all used to characters with überstats, but if you roll 3d6 you're going to end up with something in that range more often than not.

Also, Charisma has very little to do with appearance, which goes way back to pre-1st edition. Gygax even came up with a separate "Comeliness" stat to represent looks but it didn't really go anywhere. CHA has more to do with personality, charm, ability to persuade. Not traits I would associate with Kivan. And even if you threw in looks, it's not like is default portrait is all that great looking (no one said all elves have to have high Charisma or even be good-looking).

There was a great article (maybe in one of the Dragons) on "incongruent" stats and how to play them. For example, having a high CHA character who's too stupid or unwise to be able to use that ability to persuade effectively, high INT/low WIS character and vice versa, etc.

[Crazee]

Ah, I had no idea that was a canon list, I assumed it had been made up just for funsies. Interesting. Veeeery interesting. (And my goodness, aren't the adventurers we pick up a talented bunch?)

However, that doesn't mean Bioware's characters are perfect. Several of them may very well be statted out in a way that doesn't exactly mesh with how their personality is written. Viconia and Cernd having 18 WIS, for instance, and we certainly don't see Edwin make effective use of that 18 INT. It's quite possible that Minsc's mental attributes are too high, but if so, the fault lies with the writer who didn't understand what the numbers are supposed to represent.

I guess. That doesn't mean a fault's not there, though. As for Viccy, Edwin and Cernd, I'm with vilkacis that there's nothing really shown to justify their high scores, even though I'm sure they were intended to. However, that's the problem with writing these extremely clever and wise characters - how many among us are clever enough to write for "among the best in the world"? I always make my characters stupid for that very reason.

Loosely related question, that really has nothing to do with anyone or anything: In the BGNPC pack, the characters are expanded wonderfully. If the list is canon, does that mean Branwen was miswritten? She's got 9 intelligence, and yet I recall her being extremely stupid at some points. Would you say that was mischaracterisation on the writer's part? And again, if you've ever played it, in NWN2, Bevil, one of your companions for the tutorial (with very realistic stats - his highest attribute is 14, which is strength, and he says he is one of the strongest in the village) has an intelligence of 9, average, and yet he doesn't know the word territorial. If that is a word not known by the average human, I despair.

[Anaximander]

Is that stat table supposed to apply to all versions of D&D?

In 3rd edition, a half orc could start with a strength of 20. By level 20, his strength could be 25. If he happens to be a barbarian, he could activate greater rage to get another 6 points, bringing it up 31. According to that chart, that would mean a half orc barbarian using greater rage is stronger even than the greater gods. To me, this implies that he could destroy the entire world with a single blow. Am I misinterpreting? Are the greater gods really not that strong? Or does the chart not apply to 3rd edition and higher?

[Daulmakan]

That chart is for 2E, which BG is mostly based on.

[Azkyroth]

However, that's the problem with writing these extremely clever and wise characters - how many among us are clever enough to write for "among the best in the world"? I always make my characters stupid for that very reason.

Modesty forbids.

Loosely related question, that really has nothing to do with anyone or anything: In the BGNPC pack, the characters are expanded wonderfully. If the list is canon, does that mean Branwen was miswritten? She's got 9 intelligence, and yet I recall her being extremely stupid at some points. Would you say that was mischaracterisation on the writer's part? And again, if you've ever played it, in NWN2, Bevil, one of your companions for the tutorial (with very realistic stats - his highest attribute is 14, which is strength, and he says he is one of the strongest in the village) has an intelligence of 9, average, and yet he doesn't know the word territorial. If that is a word not known by the average human, I despair.

Having substantial intellectual potential doesn't mean an uneducated person won't sound like an uneducated person. (See My Wife's Cousin for details).

Is that stat table supposed to apply to all versions of D&D?

In 3rd edition, a half orc could start with a strength of 20. By level 20, his strength could be 25. If he happens to be a barbarian, he could activate greater rage to get another 6 points, bringing it up 31. According to that chart, that would mean a half orc barbarian using greater rage is stronger even than the greater gods. To me, this implies that he could destroy the entire world with a single blow. Am I misinterpreting? Are the greater gods really not that strong? Or does the chart not apply to 3rd edition and higher?

Either stats in the version the IE games were based on max out at 25, or the gods have been sitting around on their thrones for WAY too long.

[Miloch]

Either stats in the version the IE games were based on max out at 25, or the gods have been sitting around on their thrones for WAY too long.

The attribute max in 2e and in IE is 25. I think anything 20 and up in 2e was "godlike." On the same note, a half-orc can get 19 STR on creation in BG2, which isn't canon, being as how 18/00 is considered "ogre strength" (as per the gauntlets of the same name, though ogres can go as high as 20). The 19 CON is canon though - I guess they're "healthier" than either pure orcs or humans.

[Azkyroth]

Either stats in the version the IE games were based on max out at 25, or the gods have been sitting around on their thrones for WAY too long.

The attribute max in 2e and in IE is 25. I think anything 20 and up in 2e was "godlike." On the same note, a half-orc can get 19 STR on creation in BG2, which isn't canon, being as how 18/00 is considered "ogre strength" (as per the gauntlets of the same name, though ogres can go as high as 20). The 19 CON is canon though - I guess they're "healthier" than either pure orcs or humans.

"Hybrid vigor" ^.^

[Daulmakan]

"Hybrid vigor" ^.^

Unrelated to the current topic, but still:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liger

[Azkyroth]

Is it really? I can imagine some intriguing parallels in the FR...