Serpents and Sepelchers, DnD discussion topic

You have a lower Charisma score than he does.

You'll just make it worse.

You don't know what charisma is then.

Do what you want. Russell has high charisma, which means that he's charming by default, despite smashing a stool in front of everyone in the inn. I'm sure that half the women and men in the inn saw that as a chance you used to show off your strength to the rest of the party... I think.

Whats with you guys talking up his charisma, my druid has equal charisma and both our bard and our sorcerer have higher charisma. By your guys logic the Another should have people swooning over his idealism, not looking at him like an idiot, and women should be throwing themselves at Goldpick's feat. Heck by your logic the speech my druid gave should have had women swooning at my sagely advice.

1)I was harsh. I apologized.
2)Charming isn't the same as logically sound.
3) Malcolm is male. I'm not sure he's going to be swooning much.

"Charisma measures a character’s force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting."

So basically, if Russell was trying to use his antics to impress a lady, they have a better chance of working, aside from situation bonuses that I might give his actions (destroying furniture would probably be -4 to most people, +2 to people who like displays of violence).

Ultimately, those bonuses are mine to give, and while for a situation that actually mattered, I would probably penalize him on his roll (whatever he is trying to do, breaking furniture usually doesn't aid in it.), but It's largely inconsequential at the moment. We are not even in an adventure and the only NPC that is returning (=matters), the Inn Keeper, now has a low opinion if him.

To be honest, he would not have been able to cut through the chair. He could have tried to cut through the chair, but he assumed that he could, and went ahead and did it. He would have failed and what would that have accomplished? We haven't done anything yet. So I called it a natural 20 and let it slide.

Druids are usually not accepted in society and most people in cities will distrust you. It will be harder for you to lie to a lord than say, Our bard, because most lords wouldn't trust you. Animals are more your specialty.

Your abilities modify your rolls.
I make the rolls.

If I said sure, he cut straight through the chair and didn't look like a bumbling fool, then he didn't. I like the idea that he is supposed to have high charisma and can hardly manage when a girl greeted someone he was standing next to, but I'm also trying to avoid insulting every player before the game actually starts.

Surely Archy can make people swoon?

What's my special abilities anyway?

But I have the negotiation skill and I have a racial bonus for it. Doesn't that somewhat counteract my druid stigma?

It does. That doesn't prevent people who don't like Druids from not liking Druids.

If you have a -2 penalty because a man thinks you look shifty, and a +4 modifier to diplomacy, that's still a +2 modifier, but it is still worse than a +4 modifier.

And if you take a +2 bonus, because the man talks with Druids on a daily basis, and you have a +4 bonus to diplomacy, you have a total +6 bonus.

The diplomacy modifier doesn't go away, but the difficulty of diplomacy checks changes based on the situation.

Talking to the first guy, you'd need to roll an 18 or better to convince him to see things a different way, while after talking to the first guy, you only need to roll a 14 or better. That's a 20% difference in success rates.

That's harsh, Golurk. A monster? You're saying he razed villages.