And if leadership was a free feat then it could be more like str.Should Charisma have an additional effect like Strength's encumbrance? No.It actually does. Strength determines how much you can carry, Charisma determines (in large part) how many followers you can carry with leadership.
And if it didn't give you a 'cohort' then I'd be all for it.
And if it didn't give you a 'cohort' then I'd be all for it.
And if leadership was a free feat then it could be more like str.
Actually I'm good with that. Followers but no cohort without the feat... I'm good with that.
Actually I'm good with that. Followers but no cohort without the feat... I'm good with that.
That's how I run. Leadership is not a feat. If you put the work and maintenance into accumulating followers, Leadership is used as a guideline for how many you can manage.
Typical example of overpowered one-trick DPR builds which die like mice at higher levels: fighter/ranger/barbarian Drizzt clones. While on their feet, they can slice & dice a dragon -- but they fail vs 2nd-level Glitterdust or Hideous Laughter every time, lose their DEX bonus, then get their worthless flatfoot AC beaten silly by full-BAB Power Attacks.
Except, uncanny dodge.
So, respectfully, you're completely wrong.
Actually I'm good with that. Followers but no cohort without the feat... I'm good with that.And if it didn't give you a 'cohort' then I'd be all for it.
And if leadership was a free feat then it could be more like str.
you mean like it used to be in 2e?
Something like that.. then when you actually do take the leadership feat it adds a bit more to your followers and gives you the cohort.
Possibly some very well worded chain could sprout off leadership where you can aquire some high level individuals to follow underneath you but each has their specific goals and can't be used as a pocket healer or various other sillyness that people use the leadership cohort for now.
Typical example of overpowered one-trick DPR builds which die like mice at higher levels: fighter/ranger/barbarian Drizzt clones. While on their feet, they can slice & dice a dragon -- but they fail vs 2nd-level Glitterdust or Hideous Laughter every time, lose their DEX bonus, then get their worthless flatfoot AC beaten silly by full-BAB Power Attacks.Except, uncanny dodge.
So, respectfully, you're completely wrong.
Respectfully, ´his is not completely wrong.
A) Fighters and rangers don't have uncanny dodge. Not all barbarians have uncanny dodge. Some barbarian Archetypes don't get it.B) It was just an example. It could just as well have been Hold Person, Charm Person or something else.
|
Respectfully, ´his is not completely wrong.
A) Fighters and rangers don't have uncanny dodge. Not all barbarians have uncanny dodge. Some barbarian Archetypes don't get it.
The archetype point is valid, but Mike was talking about fighter/ranger/barbarian multiclass characters, who certainly would have Uncanny Dodge.
|
Typical example of overpowered one-trick DPR builds which die like mice at higher levels: fighter/ranger/barbarian Drizzt clones. While on their feet, they can slice & dice a dragon -- but they fail vs 2nd-level Glitterdust or Hideous Laughter every time, lose their DEX bonus, then get their worthless flatfoot AC beaten silly by full-BAB Power Attacks.Except, uncanny dodge. So, respectfully, you're completely wrong.
I'm only wrong, partially, if their build includes the 2nd level of Barbarian -- and most of 'em don't, because they're too busy scooping up feats from Ranger and Fighter.
(It should, but I've yet to meet a player making a FRB who cares about defenses until it's too late to do much about it -- and even if they took Barb2 for UncD, their Perception while blinded by Glitterdust doesn't leave them much hope of -- i.e., automatically fail -- beating a Bluff/feint, which leaves them in the same boat anyway: no DEX bonus.)
Something like that.. then when you actually do take the leadership feat it adds a bit more to your followers and gives you the cohort.
Possibly some very well worded chain could sprout off leadership where you can aquire some high level individuals to follow underneath you but each has their specific goals and can't be used as a pocket healer or various other sillyness that people use the leadership cohort for now.
I like the idea of followers based off of Cha and the leadership feat becoming a tree where you're required to take additional feats to level your cohort. I've always been bothered by the auto leveling of Leadership and the 0 xp cost associated with that leveling. I'd even prefer for the cohort to be limited to the NPC classes, but that's just an initial reaction and not anything I've put a great deal of thought into.
I like the idea of followers based off of Cha and the leadership feat becoming a tree where you're required to take additional feats to level your cohort. I've always been bothered by the auto leveling of Leadership and the 0 xp cost associated with that leveling. I'd even prefer for the cohort to be limited to the NPC classes, but that's just an initial reaction and not anything I've put a great deal of thought into.Something like that.. then when you actually do take the leadership feat it adds a bit more to your followers and gives you the cohort.
Possibly some very well worded chain could sprout off leadership where you can aquire some high level individuals to follow underneath you but each has their specific goals and can't be used as a pocket healer or various other sillyness that people use the leadership cohort for now.
Not sure what you meant there..
You still had to level them up with gaining exp.
I like the idea of followers based off of Cha and the leadership feat becoming a tree where you're required to take additional feats to level your cohort. I've always been bothered by the auto leveling of Leadership and the 0 xp cost associated with that leveling. I'd even prefer for the cohort to be limited to the NPC classes, but that's just an initial reaction and not anything I've put a great deal of thought into.Something like that.. then when you actually do take the leadership feat it adds a bit more to your followers and gives you the cohort.
Possibly some very well worded chain could sprout off leadership where you can aquire some high level individuals to follow underneath you but each has their specific goals and can't be used as a pocket healer or various other sillyness that people use the leadership cohort for now.
Not sure what you meant there..
You still had to level them up with gaining exp.
Sorry. Realize that is unclear. They get a 'free' portion of XP that doesn't get subtracted from the party total. There's no negative XP cost to the party for having the additional character.
The archetype point is valid, but Mike was talking about fighter/ranger/barbarian multiclass characters, who certainly would have Uncanny Dodge.
Respectfully, ´his is not completely wrong.
A) Fighters and rangers don't have uncanny dodge. Not all barbarians have uncanny dodge. Some barbarian Archetypes don't get it.
you're quouting something out of it's context.
I pointed out the charisma classes, well most of the, are some of the mosty powerful classes in the game. So boosting chrisma would boost them even more. Paladin is one of them.Stringburka claimed fighters are more powerful than Paladins and then I and Mike pointed out power is more than DPR.
This game is not all about class X is the most powerful because it can do a lot of damage. Arcane casters is a proof of this so is the Paladin and to some extent the Bard.
That said I do agree with Ævux. Charisma in general is a bit lame as a attribute, but I'm still not sure all attributes needs to be equally powerful. I wouldn't mind new rules making Charisma more useful/powerful (since I usually play characters with high charisma), but that don't mean current rules game needs to be fixed.
If charisma is to take a boost there is always a risk charisma based classes will be to powerful. If the boost won't make charisma classes too powerful, then the boost won't matter. People will still dump char if the boost isn't "powerful enough".
...What? I said nothing on the subject of Charisma, only that Dire Mongoose was right since most barbarian builds get Uncanny Dodge.
And I pointed out it was only an example. Uncanny Dodge don't protect you from charm person or Hold person.
you're qouting something out of it's context.|
|
(It should, but I've yet to meet a player making a FRB who cares about defenses until it's too late to do much about it -- and even if they took Barb2 for UncD, their Perception while blinded by Glitterdust doesn't leave them much hope of -- i.e., automatically fail -- beating a Bluff/feint, which leaves them in the same boat anyway: no DEX bonus.)Feint is resisted by Sense Motive or BAB, not Perception. It is not at all affected by being blinded, by Glitterdust or otherwise.
Nothing in the text of Uncanny Dodge or the Blindness condition explicitly renders a Barbarian immune to the penalties associated with the condition of himself being blinded (players simply assume it because the AC penalty effects are similar to those normally inflicted by creatures with the Invisibility special ability which are obviated by Uncanny Dodge).
Official ruling requested here, and suggest this tangent of the conversation continue there.
CHA is awsome, you can get past whole battles using it, it's especially fun if your DM took a lot of time to make the battle and I made it so a blade was not drawn, so CHA is awsome.
I must say that you have a very nice Dungeon Master then. Most of the Dungeon Masters that I've game with aren't going to allow the players to derail his 'epic' fight with all their annoying talking and rules.
Which is, to me, one of the ultimate problems with Charisma; it is so easy and tempting to just DM fiat it's effects away. Realistically (yes, I know some of you hate that word but bear with me) I would think Charisma would be the most powerful of all the stats as it would allow a character to talk almost anyone into almost anything at high enough levels with the right skills. Who needs epic strength or supreme intelligence when you can bend the will of others like a blade of grass?
And therein lays the problems. In the right hands it's a game breaker. It's only good at a very small range of things, but almost all of those things have more potential to royally screw up a campaign then pretty much anything else.
So what is a lack-luster Dungeon Master supposed to do in the face of his campaign falling apart? Hit Charisma so hard with the hammer it's near worthless. Non-player character refuse to listen to the player characters when they use diplomacy, enemies attack on sight or speak some obscure language that no one else could possibly know, and merchant prices are set in adamantine. I’ve even noticed some official material gets in on this game, having seen some adventures where it outright says that some enemies if captured will not give away more than a vague bit of information under any amount of intimidation or diplomacy.
That is in my humble opinion the problem with Charisma.
I do agree Cha can be a dump stat. I don't see that as a "bad" thing though even if it is dumped. IF you take a good Cha score you can get lots of good use out of it.
If you don't there are some situations where you can/will be penalized for it... but they aren't common.
I consider that a 'fair' trade -- if you invest you get great stuff out of it -- if you don't it's not killing you (usually).
I agree with you, Abe. CHA dumping, if you're not gonna use it, and you want to improve something else, is fine. If the player feels like the benefits outweigh the penalties, then that's fine by me.
I'm not in love with the idea that *every* stat must be a "must have or you are penalized" sort of deal. There should be some places where *not* having something or being *really poor* at something isn't going to kill you immediately.
I think a lot of times it comes down to a simple preconception; Player X has exploited the system and must be made to suffer. That's a lousy attitude. :(
|
|
CHA is awsome, you can get past whole battles using it, it's especially fun if your DM took a lot of time to make the battle and I made it so a blade was not drawn, so CHA is awsome.I must say that you have a very nice Dungeon Master then. Most of the Dungeon Masters that I've game with aren't going to allow the players to derail his 'epic' fight with all their annoying talking and rules.
Which is, to me, one of the ultimate problems with Charisma; it is so easy and tempting to just DM fiat it's effects away. Realistically (yes, I know some of you hate that word but bear with me) I would think Charisma would be the most powerful of all the stats as it would allow a character to talk almost anyone into almost anything at high enough levels with the right skills. Who needs epic strength or supreme intelligence when you can bend the will of others like a blade of grass?
And therein lays the problems. In the right hands it's a game breaker. It's only good at a very small range of things, but almost all of those things have more potential to royally screw up a campaign then pretty much anything else.
So what is a lack-luster Dungeon Master supposed to do in the face of his campaign falling apart? Hit Charisma so hard with the hammer it's near worthless. Non-player character refuse to listen to the player characters when they use diplomacy, enemies attack on sight or speak some obscure language that no one else could possibly know, and merchant prices are set in adamantine. I’ve even noticed some official material gets in on this game, having seen some adventures where it outright says that some enemies if captured will not give away more than a vague bit of information under any amount of intimidation or diplomacy.
That is in my humble opinion the problem with Charisma.
That problem is more with the DM.
There are three types of DM, in my experience.
The ones who are making a story with the players, the ones who are making a story for the players, and the ones who are making a story against the players.
The third, run away. The second...meh...
The first, the first will realize that if you are able to avoid that epic battle with charisma it is only an opportunity to see what else can happen next.
CHA is awsome, you can get past whole battles using it, it's especially fun if your DM took a lot of time to make the battle and I made it so a blade was not drawn, so CHA is awsome.I must say that you have a very nice Dungeon Master then. Most of the Dungeon Masters that I've game with aren't going to allow the players to derail his 'epic' fight with all their annoying talking and rules.
Which is, to me, one of the ultimate problems with Charisma; it is so easy and tempting to just DM fiat it's effects away. Realistically (yes, I know some of you hate that word but bear with me) I would think Charisma would be the most powerful of all the stats as it would allow a character to talk almost anyone into almost anything at high enough levels with the right skills. Who needs epic strength or supreme intelligence when you can bend the will of others like a blade of grass?
And therein lays the problems. In the right hands it's a game breaker. It's only good at a very small range of things, but almost all of those things have more potential to royally screw up a campaign then pretty much anything else.
So what is a lack-luster Dungeon Master supposed to do in the face of his campaign falling apart? Hit Charisma so hard with the hammer it's near worthless. Non-player character refuse to listen to the player characters when they use diplomacy, enemies attack on sight or speak some obscure language that no one else could possibly know, and merchant prices are set in adamantine. I’ve even noticed some official material gets in on this game, having seen some adventures where it outright says that some enemies if captured will not give away more than a vague bit of information under any amount of intimidation or diplomacy.
That is in my humble opinion the problem with Charisma.
Most games with strong social mechanics have an option: Fight. Regardless of what's being said, one side can always just draw their sword and end the discussion. If you want to keep talking to them, you're going to have to subdue them first.
|
|
I'm no fan of dump stats in the sense that a player takes points from one stat to bump up another that's more mechanically advantageous. But then, that's one of the reason I have my players roll their stats.
<minor anti-rolling rant>
With die-roll chargen, the odds are good they'll have either more dumped stats than they'd like or more uber stats than you think they deserve. There will also be a great disparity (as great as 2 per stat) between the best and worst rolled sets of dice among players -- which is really unfair to the players who don't roll well (their chargen rolls are literally the most important die rolls they make ever).
If you permit rerolling, then it's more or less the same as point-buy, but more nerve-wracking and still unenjoyable if one's PC is down, say, 3pts versus party average and that doesn't flip the DM's "OK; that's really horrible so I'll let you reroll" switch.
Later on, your fighter keeps rolling 2s for hit-points every level-up while the stupid rogue rolls 8 after 8, and gets to spend the campaign strutting around like the lord of battle while you're cowering behind your shield fighting defensively full-time.
Gar...
<anti-rolling rant: off>
I've been mulling this over the last week or two and I've decided to give my players an Xp bonus like the old system's prime attribute bonus but based purely on Cha and justifying it as the gods favouring those with a bit more presence and command.
CHA 3-5 -10%
6-8 -5%
9-12 0
13-15 +5%
16-18 +10%
19-21 +15% etc...
Don't think it's too much of a game breaker but gives enough for non-cha based characters to think about putting a few points into it.
I thought of something else.. One of the big problem with the mental stats is that they are like a trinity.
A person is highly charasmatic but not intelligent or wise. What would he be like? I bet he would be extremely annoying even though his cha is high.
An High Int is sometimes hard to do without also having a good wis. It is easier though to do regardless of cha. Basically that one kid in Bones who turned out to be an apprentice of a killer.
High wis is kinda hard without good int. But can still be done with a low cha.
With the pyhsical stats, they are much more separate. Str means your strong, dex means you are agile, and con means you can take hits. (I imagine a high con to be a rather fat person who's muscle mass is mainly reserved just to carry his bulk. While a high str low con is a professional body builder)
I thought of something else.. One of the big problem with the mental stats is that they are like a trinity.
A person is highly charasmatic but not intelligent or wise. What would he be like? I bet he would be extremely annoying even though his cha is high.
I have several NPCs with high charisma that I play as annoying, self-aggrandizing douches. A common example is a bard with high int and cha, but low wis, spitting venom before thinking, and not having empathy worth squat, coming off as aloof and superior.
Then I have a high wis, high cha cleric with low int that is a tad too earthy for most, constantly talking about virtues and ideals that may not be very feasible.
Then there is the High Cha, low Wis AND Int oracle of battle that is pretty much "the dumb hot guy" that everyone likes and listens to when he is THERE, but when he leaves and you get time to think over what he said, you realize that he is a complete male bimbo.
I played a sorcerer/dragon disciple with Cha24, Int12 and Wis8. He was a bit of a megalomaniac, rarely thinking things through, burning with passion and having the savvy to come up with plans, but rarely any good contingencies. "The Dragon of Korvosa" got famous for his amazing good looks, his passionate war against evil and oppression, and among his friends as a liability if no-one corrected his plans. He also tended to favor melee if he thought he could win, earning heavy sighs from the more cautious PCs.
I imagine a high con to be a rather fat person who's muscle mass is mainly reserved just to carry his bulk.
Heh, I imagine almost the opposite -- the low Con guy is a fat mouth-breather who suffers from sleep apnia (so he's perpetually tired), has low wind, and who gets sick a lot. The high Con guy is like a marathon runner who's still fresh after exterting himself in combat.
It all depends on if you consider a "hit" to be a bone-smacking solid impact or a graze, and if "hit points" represent turning a lethal wound to a nick, or whether they somehow magically enable you to absorb solid sword blows. Either way works, since it's all abstract and in your imagination.
|
Gonna agree with this here. Charisma is a dump stat because unless you're a diplomacy/bluff monkey and/or it's needed for your class no ones gonna bother.
Also on the rule zero thing, it's cool and all but not really a good excuse for bad game design IMO.
Hate to edition wars it but 4e had somethin goin for it by attaching will save to it (CHA being some inner power or whatever you wanna say). Is it cheesey? Yes. Does it make it less dump-statable? Absolutely.
Charisma isn't necessarily worse, and in fact a high Cha used well can be a game changer.
But the fact is unless you are playing Charisma Guy you can almost skip it entirely.
Every other stat has a non-skill check application that everyone gets:
Str - Carrying Capacity, Melee Attack, Damage
Dex - Initiative, Reflex Saves, AC, Ranged Attack, Ref Save
Con - HP, Fort Save
Int - Number of skill points, Bonus Languages
Wis - Will Save
Cha -It's not about making Cha "must have", it's about giving it uses if you aren't specialized in it.
I think a lot of times it comes down to a simple preconception; Player X has exploited the system and must be made to suffer. That's a lousy attitude. :(
Exactly. Just because the guy isn't a 5th wheel and has some system mastery doesn't mean he's there to cramp your style or is trying to 'break the game' or is even a munchkin (whatever definition of that you even want to use).
A player that challenges you by being capable and building a specific character is not an opportunity for you to beat him down with random rule changes, random immunities or simple one-upsmanship.
Instead it is an opportunity to become a better GM by learning new ways of doing things and approaching your table in a different matter.
***********************************
Sometimes it is simply communication clash -- and that's okay too. However communication clash is both people's fault in most cases and the easiest way to solve it is to talk as opposed to deciding the guy needs taken down.
I imagine a high con to be a rather fat person who's muscle mass is mainly reserved just to carry his bulk.Heh, I imagine almost the opposite -- the low Con guy is a fat mouth-breather who suffers from sleep apnia (so he's perpetually tired), has low wind, and who gets sick a lot. The high Con guy is like a marathon runner who's still fresh after exterting himself in combat.
It all depends on if you consider a "hit" to be a bone-smacking solid impact or a graze, and if "hit points" represent turning a lethal wound to a nick, or whether they somehow magically enable you to absorb solid sword blows. Either way works, since it's all abstract and in your imagination.
Well by that I did mean that he didn't suffer from anthing like that. Probally would be something of a runner, but he isn't the lith frame of a high dexer and isn't the extream muscle of a high strther.
I mostly was imaganing a guy who could take a hit.