Cha, and why its a dump stat.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

This all strikes me as very odd...

Can anyone in here tell from a glance who is a font of unending charisma, and who is as socially gifted as the average toad?

Because that is the initial reaction. That stuff is not based on your charisma score, that is based on the preferences of the NPC.

The dwarven blacksmith that has a strong sense of warrior honor and had his son crippled by an elven archer that used magic to bypass his armor will look very differently on people. If you are of elven ancestry, he will likely dislike you right off the bat, high charisma or no. An obvious elven spell-caster, even more so. So your half-elven sorcerer with Cha22 with maxed social skills will receive the "Unfriendly" or even "Hostile" initial reaction. While a honest and simple-speaking warrior will be greeted with friendly, even helpful if he is a dwarven warrior that display a holy symbol of Torag. Even if HE has Cha 5 and no social skills.

Sure, after talking for a while, the blacksmith will learn that the half-elf sorcerer might not be so bad, and that the dwarf is about as socially tolerable as a plague-rat, but the blacksmith is still himself, and reacts like his life has taught him to react.

Same is true for "getting it on". Everyone has a type. The initial reaction of a girl who has a thing for tall, strong and manly types will not be too impressed initially by your 5'0" Str7 clean-shaven bard, even if he has Cha20. But she might be smiling at the 6'9" Str18/Cha8 fighter that has not shaved in a few days. But if the bard TRIES, he might well swoop her off her feet with his social graces, and the fighter will likely find himself polishing his own sword :P


One thing that should probably be thought of too, is "how much penalty is a penalty". If NPC stats were rolled (3d6) like in 3.5 and we assume the stat arrays are for simplicitys sake, and that the racial modifier was applied at random afterwards, then about one in five people has a charisma of 8 or lower. Charisma 8 doesn't mean you have the social skill of a ham sandwich, it just means you aren't the funniest guy to be with for extended periods. Now, if you charisma is 5, that's as high as 1/21 people. You'll have a hard time conversating with people usually, people may shun you, and you can't easily hide it by just "shutting up".

I think there's an issue if players get to state excactly in what way their charisma is low and limit it to that, and it's reflected in the rules that they shouldn't. If someone says "well, I've got this brutish accent and curse a lot", should that apply to conversations in sign language? Should it apply to animal empathy checks? Perform (Dance)? Apparently, there's more going on than things that are limited to a character speaking. The charisma penalty is always there, even if you shut up. It might not be relevant, but people might react negatively to you even if you try not to engage in social situation.

I'm not really trying to say "cha is fine as it is", "you should treat people in-game based on charisma score", or "you shouldn't" or "there's a problem with charisma". I'm undecided. But knowing how to calibrate the stats can be useful.

EDIT: And telling who's uncharismatic and who's charismatic IRL? I can, usually, at least when it comes to the higher differences (where this matters). The Cha 5 guy is the man that reeks of ingrown sweat and alcohol, has weird body language and always stands to close to you. The cha 16 guy is the one that you see, and just WOW! Got an old friend who's like that - everyone wants to know her, you basically can't be in town with her because there's always 30 people more or less falling to their knees in awe of the awesomeness that is her. People who're in the vicinity of her turn their heads. And it's not because she's hot and people want to sleep with her; she's kinda average-looking and has a fan club made up mostly by gay men.

So yeah, the Cha 5 and Cha 20's are totally identifiable without a long conversation.

And the girl who likes tough men will come to an exception when choosing between a S8/C18 guy and a S18/C8 guy, because the C18 guy might blow her of her feet just by pure awesomeness (only a half-percent of people are that charismatic) while the S18 guy is "hot" but not charming at all.

If you think it's too easy to get around a charisma penalty with skill points, consider using this house rule: "You only get a class bonus to skills if you don't have an ability penalty in the skill". So a Cha 5 dwarven cleric putting a point into diplomacy, would have -2 in diplomacy, not +1.
Don't know if it's needed, but it feels like a quick and easy fix if it is.


Kaisoku wrote:


So when my players roleplay out a situation, I use that roleplay to open the door to rolling a Diplomacy check to get the desired effect. Depending on what they say/do during their roleplay (if they reference something important as leverage in asking for help, calling in favors, put their foot in their mouth, etc), I apply bonuses and penalties to that check.

Whilst I don't disagree with everything you said, i find the whole applying bonuses / penalties due to roleplaying a bit of a thorny issue because they are replicating what the CHA bonus is doing. To take it to extremis a min/max player who is good at social interactions may as well keep CHA low as they will normally get a bonus anyway whereas a player with poor social skills may as well dump cha because they'll normally get a penalty to rolls anyway.

Further, you often hear of people applying roleplaying bonuses to rolls for social interactions but don't really hear of people getting a roleplaying bonus to other rolls, e.g. you don't get a bonus to hit for a good description of how you're going to attack.


One way to solve that issue is simply to roll first. If you roll high, you describe a good argument, if you roll low, you describe a bad one.


Pual wrote:
Whilst I don't disagree with everything you said, i find the whole applying bonuses / penalties due to roleplaying a bit of a thorny issue because they are replicating what the CHA bonus is doing.

For bonus/penalty to the check, I'm talking about the DMG suggested "+/- 2" circumstance bonus. Never anything that would overshadow any kind of decent Charisma score.

Usually though, it's something applied from the other end. If someone roleplays poorly (doesn't mention the proper things, or doesn't talk to the correct person), then there isn't even a chance at making a Diplomacy check (or I let them roll and tell them what they could potentially get out the person: which was nothing).

Sometimes, there might be different DCs, or maybe different results from the check.

This is no different then deciding to go left or right at an intersection in a dungeon, and hitting the spore monster or the pit trap first.
Or deciding to kill one guy, giving another guy a chance to get away, etc.

Roleplaying opens the opportunities, and affects how difficult it is. This might be a DC 15 check to get a name of a guy who knows some info, or a DC 25 check to find the location of the very thing you are looking for instead, but you have to ask the right questions, or the right person, etc.


stringburka wrote:
One way to solve that issue is simply to roll first. If you roll high, you describe a good argument, if you roll low, you describe a bad one.

For some reason, in our group anyways, we've always had more fun describing what's said first, and then letting the check determine how it really comes out.

My friends like the humorous "he thinks's he's cool, but isn't" aspect of it when the roll comes up low. :)

On the flipside, I remember one game where we had a rogue with stellar stats, that was played as kind of a schmoozing idiot (despite his 18 Int and high Cha and social skills).
So even though he did things that would likely have gotten him locked in jail.. princesses would just blush, and Kings would smirk despite themselves.

All this while the rest of the group (the rest of us), are basically "immune to his charms" (he isn't using diplomacy on us) and thus shaking our heads wondering how he always gets away with it, etc.


I have been toying around with removing the stat-based effects that don't modify an action. Examples.

Strength: Move encumbrance, lifting and break under Athletics (a new jump, climb, swim skill based off of Strength).

Dexterity: No abilities that don't modify

Constitution: No abilities that don't modify (in cases of situations where endurance matters, use the athletics skill or survival)

Intelligence: Remove bonus languages based on Int (there's already a skill for learning languages and it only costs 1 skill point). I have also considered removing bonus skill points based on Int and instead just raising base skill points by +2)

Wisdom: No abilities that don't modify

Charisma: No abilities that don't modify

Once this is done, you can then take a look at what Ability Scores modify and begin to see if changes are needed there.

Strength (Str)
- Melee attack rolls.
- Damage rolls
- Skills

Dexterity (Dex)
- Ranged attack rolls
- Armor Class (AC)
- Initiative
- Reflex saving throws
- Skills

Constitution (Con)
- HP
- Fortitude saving throws

Intelligence (Int)
- Skill Points
- Skills
- Int-based Magic

Wisdom (Wis)
- Will Saves
- Skills
- Wis-based Magic

Charisma (Cha)
- Skills
- Cha-based Magic

Ignoring Con which is valuable to all characters let's ask a few questions about the skills.

1. Attack Bonus: Does attack bonus equal bonuses to magic? I would say yes. If you want your spell to be successful you need a high ability score to raise the DC of the spell. So I think that keeping the attack bonus and magic bonus for each ability score as is, doesn't create imbalance between classes.

2. Damage. Right now Strength is the only thing that modifies damage. If we leave it alone, only melee and some ranged people benefit from Strength. So we can either remove it from Strength (which I think is a little silly) or add damage boosting to each ability score. Dexterity for ranged damage, Int for spell damage, wis for spell damage, cha for spell damage. That keeps everything in line. Or we could assume that the level bonus for spell damage is equal to the ability score damage of Strength, which would just leave Dex out of the damage loop.

3. Armor Class. Here's the rub and the question. Does Dex AC equal Armor AC and Spell bonus to AC? Can we assume that those with high Strength will wear high AC armor? If they're playing a fighter, probably yes, but a Barbarian? Barbarians get a few more HP to offset there lower AC, but does it equal? Not sure. Let's leave it alone for now.

4. Initiative. Sometimes a game changer. But a simple feat equals an 18 Dex when it comes to Initiative. And a few traits increase this as well. I don't see an issue with Dex modifying Int. I don't think it unbalances the other ability scores. I could be wrong.

5. Saving Throws. Here's the biggest difference between ability scores. Three have a huge benefit over the others. If we ignore Con, since all characters benefit, then we're left with Wis and Dex. The only way I've been able to see to balance this is to create saves based on all six ability scores. The other option, remove saves from stats all together (ie 4.0s 50/50 save ends mechanic) I don't particularly like and feel it relies way too much on chance. There should be some benefit to ability scores and saves.

Overall the only real mechanic of ability scores that bothers me is the saving throw mechanic which seems to most imbalanced of all of them. The rest only require minor tweaking to balance.

I do agree with other people about Social Interactions not having a solid mechanic, but I also agree with those that think that Roleplaying often supersedes Cha-based skills. However, there are some things that can be done to make Social Encounters more robust.

1. Create a social initiative based off of Cha, the same way that combat initiative is based off of Dex.

2. Create a group charisma (reputation?) that modifies social encounters. If you're traveling around with that evil guy who kills peasants, that will affect the entire group, not just that character.

3. Create a mechanic where the low Cha character negatively impacts the high Cha character. It could be something as simple as, everyone in the encounter rolls Dip or Bluff and you gain +1 or -1 based on success. A positive group total equals success and a negative total equals failure. I'm not sure I like it, but its an option to consider.

Anyway, those are just a few quick ideas and underdeveloped to say the least. Aside from saving throws, I really don't think there's that much imbalance between ability scores. I did just fine playing my 8 Con, 6 Str, 10 AC wizard/cleric in my game (all the way up to 20). I used magic to compensate and survived. I would like a more robust social encounter mechanic, but those I've seen so far in other RPGs failed to spark my imagination and often bogged down the social encounters as much as combat mechanics bog down combat. It can be fun, but sometimes it gets tiring.


erik542 wrote:
For example, people can't really understand how persuasive that 23 CHA succubus is... I presume there's a sufficient number of loopholes in the agreement to make the contract be not binding for the other side.

Interesting... so, basically, you have Charisma also supersede Knowledge (contract law) and Language (legalese) in your game? Those are certainly legitimate uses, and ones that would add much-needed value to the stat -- but they're not things that most players would probably realize that the stat has, unless you spell that out to them beforehand. If it came up as a surprise ("Well, of course Brad Pitt is better at creating contract loopholes than Johnny Cochran! Duh!"), then the players might have a legitimate gripe, I think. On the other hand, if they knew about it up front, it could be a very nice addition to the game.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
erik542 wrote:
For example, people can't really understand how persuasive that 23 CHA succubus is... I presume there's a sufficient number of loopholes in the agreement to make the contract be not binding for the other side.
Interesting... so, basically, you have Charisma also supersede Knowledge (contract law) and Language (legalese) in your game? Those are certainly legitimate uses, and ones that would add much-needed value to the stat -- but they're not things that most players would probably realize that the stat has, unless you spell that out to them beforehand. If it came up as a surprise ("Well, of course Brad Pitt is better at creating contract loopholes than Johnny Cochran! Duh!"), then the players might have a legitimate gripe, I think. On the other hand, if they knew about it up front, it could be a very nice addition to the game.

Depends on the nature in which the deal is being made. If it is something like a quick verbal agreement then it'll be entirely CHA based. For more formal negotiations, it'll be CHA base to outline the broad terms and linguistics for the finalization. Think of it as a smaller scale of Wish perversion. It's CHA based for short agreements because people aren't going to sit down and analyze the agreement in detail; so deals are made by persuasion. Many people know someone who is simply a manipulative jerk. They don't pull out terms like "the aforementioned party", they keep it to simple English. If people sit down for hours / days at a time for negotiations, then I'd use the linguistics check.


Ævux wrote:
Now people look at 100-200mph as a fast in a car, perhaps even more

200 definitely is fast. A lot less than that can be fast.

100mph, on the other hand, is a sedate travelling speed.


The issue I see with Charisma is that unless it's something actively desired by your class, it won't do you much good. All other stats have benefits that help everyone:

Strength: Melee attacks, melee damage, ranged damage with bows, slings, and thrown weapons, carrying capacity. 2 skills.
Dexterity: Reflex saves, AC, initiative, ranged attacks. 7 skills.
Constitution: Hit points, Fortitude saves. 0 skills.
Intelligence: Bonus languages, skill points. 5 skills, two of whom have numerous subskills (e.g. Knowledge).
Wisdom: Will saves. 5 skills.
Charisma: 6 skills.

Every stat other than Charisma has non-skillbased stuff that helps everyone. You might consider the stat's bonuses less important, but they're there. Strength is a bit of a special case since its use is pretty narrow, but it's a narrow niche many characters want, so it's fairly rare as a dump stat as well.

In my old Eberron campaign, I solved that by making action points Charisma-based - instead of getting 5+(level/2) action points per level, they got 5+(level/2)+Cha modifier action points. After all, most action movies have charismatic characters in the lead. But the Pathfinder campaign I may or may not start up some time soon, I won't be using action points, so I'll have to see about figuring out something else.


Ævux wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

What is the goal of bringing this up?

More of 3... but really its 4) Cha is lacking a real mechanic tied to it that everyone can benefit from.

STR is the same way. The only stat that EVERYONE benefits from is CON, which is why nobody dumps it. Everyone dumps something, and whatever they dump causes them problems.

Pathfinder is better about evening out the Dumpage Drawbacks than 3.5 was, which was better than 2nd ed, which was better than 1st. PF is really quite a good system, a few glaring omissions aside.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
The issue I see with Charisma is that unless it's something actively desired by your class, it won't do you much good.

Some people say that the DM should be enforcing the effect of the Charisma score through NPC reactions. Others say there should be more hardcoded rules effected by the Charisma score. That's the baseline of this discussion I think.


Just a suggestion:

What if all casters are Wisdom or Intelligence based - but all save DCs are based on Charisma?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Kirth and I considered an idea where casters use Int for how many spells known they get, Wis for spells prepared, and Cha for save DCs. Haven't gone through with it yet however.

Edit: I think I got that wrong, but it illustrates the idea behind it at least. Have to go find the discussion on it.


Some system like that yea, could work. But it would only "fix" things for casters.

How can it be done for fighting types?

I find the challenge is in balancing against existing classes that benefit from Charisma. Like the paladin.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

It was more a fix for spellcaster power than anything else.

For warriors, we like using the 'Charisma to Will saves' fix.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Staffan Johansson wrote:
The issue I see with Charisma is that unless it's something actively desired by your class, it won't do you much good.
Some people say that the DM should be enforcing the effect of the Charisma score through NPC reactions. Others say there should be more hardcoded rules effected by the Charisma score. That's the baseline of this discussion I think.

Yep. I am a proponent of the former, but not to the extent of arguing in its favor.


beej67 wrote:
Ævux wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

What is the goal of bringing this up?

More of 3... but really its 4) Cha is lacking a real mechanic tied to it that everyone can benefit from.

STR is the same way. The only stat that EVERYONE benefits from is CON, which is why nobody dumps it. Everyone dumps something, and whatever they dump causes them problems.

Pathfinder is better about evening out the Dumpage Drawbacks than 3.5 was, which was better than 2nd ed, which was better than 1st. PF is really quite a good system, a few glaring omissions aside.

Actually, STR isn't really provided your arn't allowing your characters a magic storage chest.. Early on, low str hurts a lot. I've had a number of characters die because i didn't have the str to carry better armor and we hadn't gotten access to mithril yet.

Even after bags of holding and such, I've alway got tons and tons of gear. Even on my wizards..

Course I'm strange like that.. I do dump con :P (Not that the con would have mad any difference when my character died.. 1 more hp wasn't what i needed.. More like 3 more of me.)

Liberty's Edge

TriOmegaZero wrote:


For warriors, we like using the 'Charisma to Will saves' fix.

I use this one for casters and warriors alike: You get your choice of Chr and Wis to Will Save. This encourages only having one of the two really high, but barring Clerics (who have other reasons to raise both) that seems to match up pretty well with fiction, and even to some extent with real people, so it works for me.

It also has the benefit that nobody loses anything by it, so there are no hard feelings. Yeah, it makes the Paladin's Will Save ridiculous, but that's thematically appropriate, and hardly an 'I Win' button.


There's something that really bugs me about this thread. There's an unstated presumption that this is somehow a bad thing, or somehow not reflective of how Pathfinder/DND/etc should be. Every post I read I keep thinking .... so what?

If someone told me to put together a squad to clear out a cave full of orcs, I'm picking some sneaky dudes, some strong dudes, some smart dudes who can shoot lightning bolts out of their fingers, and some wise dudes who can fix wounds. You don't need charismatic dudes to kill the orcs.

The lack of support for CHA based characters when they're given a task of "kill the orc cave" is not a game flaw. It's by design. It's intended. It should be no other way. Why would anyone want to incentivize bringing charming people out to kill the orcs?

Conversely, if someone told me to put together a squad to have dinner at the king's house, woo the princess, gain favor with the duke, and earn four squads of dragoons to protect my town, I'm not bringing Conan The Destroyer to the cocktail party.

Point(s) being:

1) players are going to dump whatever stat they see as unimportant to the task they've chosen for their character, and

2) a preponderance of one stat getting dumped isn't necessarily indicative of a poor game mechanic, it's merely indicative of the types of tasks the players are expecting to have to perform

The whole thread is based on a false premise that CHA should be important to the task of killing orcs.


beej67 wrote:
Why would anyone want to incentivize bringing charming people out to kill the orcs?

1. Flavor-wise, according to the rules description, "charming" is the least part of Charisma. "Force of Personality" is the main thing -- why incentivize sending a bunch of emo kids with low self-esteem out to kill orcs, when you could instead send self-assured adults?

2. Rules-wise, if 5 stats are valuable and 1 stat isn't, you don't go around pretending that 6th stat is equal. If it's supposed to be totally unimportant (as you assert), then be honest and GET RID OF IT.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
beej67 wrote:


The whole thread is based on a false premise that CHA should be important to the task of killing orcs.

I disagree. This whole thread is based on the premise that Cha should be equal in importance to all the other stats. Because the game is not just about killing orcs.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
beej67 wrote:


The whole thread is based on a false premise that CHA should be important to the task of killing orcs.
I disagree. This whole thread is based on the premise that Cha should be equal in importance to all the other stats. Because the game is not just about killing orcs.

Sarcasm, perhaps?


TriOmegaZero wrote:
beej67 wrote:


The whole thread is based on a false premise that CHA should be important to the task of killing orcs.
I disagree. This whole thread is based on the premise that Cha should be equal in importance to all the other stats. Because the game is not just about killing orcs.

Which is why CHA is freaking awesome in the non-orc-killing portions of the game, and players who've taken it as a dump stat get pwned in those portions of the game.

Leadership feat. Nuff said.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
beej67 wrote:


The whole thread is based on a false premise that CHA should be important to the task of killing orcs.
I disagree. This whole thread is based on the premise that Cha should be equal in importance to all the other stats. Because the game is not just about killing orcs.

The problem here is you are both correct.

The game is not about just killing (insert favorite monster here).
Yet many who complain about (insert attribute here) is a dump stat; fail to realize that is the attitude of the player who makes it a dump stat.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
Leadership feat. Nuff said.

Never actually seen it used.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
Leadership feat. Nuff said.
Never actually seen it used.

Really?

Wow.

It's absolutely the most overpowered thing in the game, and it all runs off CHA. My 12th level party has a bard with over 100 4th level followers, who all row his giant byzantine dromon battleship. Go read up on it. If you're a minmaxer, there's huge rewards to reap for focusing on CHA. We're all fairly lucky he opted not to give his Cohort leadership as well, or we'd have to deal with whole armies to get anywhere.

The shortest path to "the win" in Pathfinder is Leadership, whether you're a CHA guy or not, and if you're properly CHA'd then it's about twice as cool as otherwise. Our party has a half orc cleric soon to be lich, who just dumped all the money he had into a CHA tome because he's going leadership route.


beej67 wrote:
It's absolutely the most overpowered thing in the game, and it all runs off CHA.

Which, unfortunately, is also why it's the most banned feat in the game by a wide margin. Probably less campaigns allow it than don't.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

That's actually the reason I ban Leadership in my games. You want an army? Earn it through roleplay.


beej67 wrote:
Ævux wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

What is the goal of bringing this up?

More of 3... but really its 4) Cha is lacking a real mechanic tied to it that everyone can benefit from.
STR is the same way.

That's not quite true: there's still a lot of poison and special attacks that drain STR in Pathfinder core. CHR? Not a whole lot of that.

Not that it's still not, probably, worth your while to dump STR as a typical wizard or sorcerer, but you do build in a weakness thereby that you're likely to have come up at least once in a typical campaign. None of the mental stats, especially CHR, have that same drawback to a comparable degree.


Dire Mongoose wrote:
beej67 wrote:
It's absolutely the most overpowered thing in the game, and it all runs off CHA.
Which, unfortunately, is also why it's the most banned feat in the game by a wide margin. Probably less campaigns allow it than don't.

Well gee. If you're going to Homebrew Nuke CHA's most important feature, then it's no surprise people are dumping it. I'd dump it too.

Anyone who homebrewnuke's leadership and then complains that CHA is no good needs to reevaluate their game.

Quote:
That's actually the reason I ban Leadership in my games. You want an army? Earn it through roleplay.

ROFL

"If you want to be diplomatic, do it in roleplay."
"If you want to bluff someone, do it in roleplay."
"If you want to intimidate someone, do it in roleplay."

If you don't want people to be able to adjudicate roleplaying with dice then remove CHA from your games, don't complain about it not being supported enough by the orc bashing, which is what you've narrowed your game to.


beej67 wrote:
Dire Mongoose wrote:
beej67 wrote:
It's absolutely the most overpowered thing in the game, and it all runs off CHA.
Which, unfortunately, is also why it's the most banned feat in the game by a wide margin. Probably less campaigns allow it than don't.
Well gee. If you're going to Homebrew Nuke CHA's most important feature, then it's no surprise people are dumping it. I'd dump it too.

Yeah, that's why there needs to be something else for CHR.

Note, I'm not arguing that people should ban leadership. I'm just telling you: the fact is, most GMs do. We should discuss what can be done given the reality of that.


beej67 wrote:


There's something that really bugs me about this thread. There's an unstated presumption that this is somehow a bad thing, or somehow not reflective of how Pathfinder/DND/etc should be. Every post I read I keep thinking .... so what?

If someone told me to put together a squad to clear out a cave full of orcs, I'm picking some sneaky dudes, some strong dudes, some smart dudes who can shoot lightning bolts out of their fingers, and some wise dudes who can fix wounds. You don't need charismatic dudes to kill the orcs.

The lack of support for CHA based characters when they're given a task of "kill the orc cave" is not a game flaw. It's by design. It's intended. It should be no other way. Why would anyone want to incentivize bringing charming people out to kill the orcs?

Conversely, if someone told me to put together a squad to have dinner at the king's house, woo the princess, gain favor with the duke, and earn four squads of dragoons to protect my town, I'm not bringing Conan The Destroyer to the cocktail party.

Point(s) being:

1) players are going to dump whatever stat they see as unimportant to the task they've chosen for their character, and

2) a preponderance of one stat getting dumped isn't necessarily indicative of a poor game mechanic, it's merely indicative of the types of tasks the players are expecting to have to perform

The whole thread is based on a false premise that CHA should be important to the task of killing orcs.

So what you are saying is that this isn't right..?

beej67 wrote:


Ninjas draw their power from being creepy cool scary jumpy hidey NINJAS who have no wisdom except death and intimidation.
beej67 wrote:


Ninja should have Ki based on CHA for its mechanical features then?

[quote="beej67"

There *IS* room in the class-space for a charisma based infiltrator, because rogue is not it.

In a way you are right though..but you didn't extend things done to many classes are based on the false premise that cha should be useful in killing orcs, so in order accomplish this we should make a whole bunch of classes that try to accomplish that.

Because groups like yours dumps cha.

Also, your post is based on the false idea that the only way to "defeat" the orcs is through killing them. Clearing out the caves of orcs doesn't mean you need to kill them. Even killing them doesn't mean you need to kill them.

You only have to make people believe you've killed them and set it up so that no one will find out that you didn't kill them or only killed a few of them. For the orcs you can make them belive you will slaughter them..

Problem is, regardless of what some people have tried to say (If you have a 7 cha this happens..), You can still go through those social encounters purely through skill and RP.

The reason why? Take Spock for example. he actually has a very low cha. His ability to dipmocises is based off mathmatical calculations. Several individuals are like this too. Early in the series Dr. Brennen from bones. (She has since developed a bit more cha.) Zack in that show was even lower than she was in cha. Yet people didn't rear in horror at the kid the momenet they saw him.

Hags have a high cha, but you don't see them invited to kings dinners..


Ævux wrote:
so what you're saying is...

So do you agree with me in the Ninja thread or do you agree with me here?

Pick.


beej67 wrote:
It's absolutely the most overpowered thing in the game, and it all runs off CHA. My 12th level party has a bard with over 100 4th level followers, who all row his giant byzantine dromon battleship.

At 12th level, a fleet of battleships and 1,000 followers don't mean squat. One summoned monster with DR wipes out any size army of mooks, sinks the ships, and fetches the summoner dinner, all before bedtime.

BTW, Leadership comes with a table, and there is no legal way to get 100 4th level followers; the max is 4 followers of that level, assuming your bard somehow has a 36 Charisma.

The only real use of Leadership that might cause a stir in actual play is for a healbot or buff-the-boss cohort.


Actually.. neither.

I'm against just making classes cha based because cha has no use in combat and even in social in encounters its effects are limited at best.

But slightly, I'm for increasing the use of cha in combat, particularly in inititive. Like i've said before, a person who has a outgoing personality is going to act sooner. (this is reflected in a few traits, such as one of the ones in the gnomes hand book)


Dire Mongoose wrote:
beej67 wrote:
Well gee. If you're going to Homebrew Nuke CHA's most important feature, then it's no surprise people are dumping it. I'd dump it too.

Yeah, that's why there needs to be something else for CHR.

Note, I'm not arguing that people should ban leadership. I'm just telling you: the fact is, most GMs do. We should discuss what can be done given the reality of that.

Anyone who prohibits CHA from influencing the leadership, diplomacy, bluff, and intimidation aspects of Pathfinder, instead defaulting purely to roleplay to adjudicate them, should remove CHA from their games and set everything CHA based to either STR (intimidate), INT, or WIS, and just be done with it.

There is a fundamental game design premise that has been with Dungeons and Dragons since the beginning, that you can default to dice for social interaction tasks. All good GMs still require roleplaying, but that game design choice of allowing dice to affect the roleplaying is intrinsic to the system, and has been since the 70s, before most of you were born. Either love it or leave it. If you're going to strike leadership from your game, then:

strike diplomacy,
strike bluff,
make intimidate STR based
make perform DEX based
make UMD INT based
make Handle Animal WIZ based
make Sorcerers go off INT
make undead go off WIZ

and proceed with a 5 skill game.

There is no reason to shoehorn CHA into a game where you don't allow stats to influence roleplaying. If you're going to nerf it, nerf it properly. By playing the core game with CHA in it at all, you're automatically accepting that rolls can and should affect roleplay, affect leadership, affect whether you can raise an army, etc. These things are game design presumptions that you must accept to even enter into the discussion. If you don't accept them, then don't whine about CHA being a dump stat, get rid of it.


Ævux wrote:
But slightly, I'm for increasing the use of cha in combat, particularly in inititive. Like i've said before, a person who has a outgoing personality is going to act sooner.

I'd have no problem with this -- you're taking a use away from Dex, which has a zillion of them, and giving it to Cha, which currently has only one.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
beej67 wrote:


ROFL

"If you want to be diplomatic, do it in roleplay."
"If you want to bluff someone, do it in roleplay."
"If you want to intimidate someone, do it in roleplay."

If you don't want people to be able to adjudicate roleplaying with dice then remove CHA from your games, don't complain about it not being supported enough by the orc bashing, which is what you've narrowed your game to.

...what? How did you jump to all that just because I don't allow Leadership? Not that I've ever had to enforce it, as no player I've ever had has asked for it.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Ævux wrote:
But slightly, I'm for increasing the use of cha in combat, particularly in inititive. Like i've said before, a person who has a outgoing personality is going to act sooner.
I'd have no problem with this -- you're taking a use away from Dex, which has a zillion of them, and giving it to Cha, which currently has only one.

It could also be used in diplomatic "combat" similar to some of the things i've seen in disporia.

If you put for people in a room and then drop a body in the room, after the initial screams of panic, the first person to be like "We need to solve this murder!" is most likely the high cha based person.


drbuzzard wrote:
Daniel Gunther 346 wrote:

I housruled a long time ago that Will saves were based on Charisma, as I've always felt charisma was as much being about one's personal magnetism, likability, persuasion, as it was about personal confidence and sense of self and conviction...essentially one's ego. Which to me and my player's is more closely related to Willpower than Wisdom. Which my group has always made it more about being common sense and awareness of one's environment - perception.

SO all in all my group doesn't have any dump stats.

I'm curious, since you've not disconnected wisdom from will saves, why isn't it a dump stat now for non clerics and druids?

Sounds like you've just shifted the problem over a stat.

Not really. There are two key skills that still require Wisdom: Perception and Sense Motive are two that are useful to EVERYONE. Dump Wisdom, and anyone trying to sneak up on you is get the drop on you so much, at some point, you're going to get your clock cleaned but good, if not be turned into a blood pudding right away. There is also Heal and Survival. I don't know about your games, but in mine, no matter the group, whether they have Perception or Sense Motive as class skills, all of my players put something in those skills.


Ævux wrote:
If you put four people in a room and then drop a body in the room, after the initial screams of panic, the first person to be like "We need to solve this murder!" is most likely the high cha based person.

Exactly right -- but, sadly, the Pathfinder rules as currently written have no way to model this. Like I said, I like your solution -- if we hadn't already derived a different one for our game, I'd have no problem using yours.


Daniel Gunther 346 wrote:
drbuzzard wrote:
Daniel Gunther 346 wrote:

I housruled a long time ago that Will saves were based on Charisma, as I've always felt charisma was as much being about one's personal magnetism, likability, persuasion, as it was about personal confidence and sense of self and conviction...essentially one's ego. Which to me and my player's is more closely related to Willpower than Wisdom. Which my group has always made it more about being common sense and awareness of one's environment - perception.

SO all in all my group doesn't have any dump stats.

I'm curious, since you've not disconnected wisdom from will saves, why isn't it a dump stat now for non clerics and druids?

Sounds like you've just shifted the problem over a stat.

Not really. There are two key skills that still require Wisdom: Perception and Sense Motive are two that are useful to EVERYONE. Dump Wisdom, and anyone trying to sneak up on you is get the drop on you so much, at some point, you're going to get your clock cleaned but good, if not be turned into a blood pudding right away. There is also Heal and Survival. I don't know about your games, but in mine, no matter the group, whether they have Perception or Sense Motive as class skills, all of my players put something in those skills.

But how many of them took alterness? (or its pathfinder equivilant)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
beej67 wrote:


ROFL

"If you want to be diplomatic, do it in roleplay."
"If you want to bluff someone, do it in roleplay."
"If you want to intimidate someone, do it in roleplay."

If you don't want people to be able to adjudicate roleplaying with dice then remove CHA from your games, don't complain about it not being supported enough by the orc bashing, which is what you've narrowed your game to.

...what? How did you jump to all that just because I don't allow Leadership? Not that I've ever had to enforce it, as no player I've ever had has asked for it.

Do your players dump CHA? Does it bother you that they dump CHA?

Nuking leadership is the equivalent of nuking the strength bonus to damage. It's that significant a change to the rules. Leadership feat is a fundamental part of the "high end" game. It's one of the intended reasons not to dump CHA. If you nuke it without compensation, then it's no surprise your players dump CHA, and you shouldn't complain about them dumping it. If you do want to complain, you should go over to the Homebrew forums and post a thread about what you should add to your game to overcome how you nerfed CHA when you took out leadership.


beej67 wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
beej67 wrote:


ROFL

"If you want to be diplomatic, do it in roleplay."
"If you want to bluff someone, do it in roleplay."
"If you want to intimidate someone, do it in roleplay."

If you don't want people to be able to adjudicate roleplaying with dice then remove CHA from your games, don't complain about it not being supported enough by the orc bashing, which is what you've narrowed your game to.

...what? How did you jump to all that just because I don't allow Leadership? Not that I've ever had to enforce it, as no player I've ever had has asked for it.

Do your players dump CHA? Does it bother you that they dump CHA?

Nuking leadership is the equivalent of nuking the strength bonus to damage. It's that significant a change to the rules.

Thing is... regardless of what he wants with leadership, he has never said it was "banned" from his game to his players. And they haven't even approached him to ask.

Same thing happens with my 3.5 groups. Only reason we are even considering taking leadship is because we are in a king maker campain. If it was a normal one, leadership would be far from our minds

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Quote:
Do your players dump CHA? Does it bother you that they dump CHA?

Nope, doesn't bother me in the slightest. Because for most of them, it really doesn't make a difference in game. They have never asked about Leadership, so they don't even know they can't have it. They look at Cha, and see it doesn't get them anything other than social skills. And I already have a solution to make it important. Have it add to Will saves instead of Wis.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
Do your players dump CHA? Does it bother you that they dump CHA?
Nope, doesn't bother me in the slightest. Because for most of them, it really doesn't make a difference in game. They have never asked about Leadership, so they don't even know they can't have it. They look at Cha, and see it doesn't get them anything other than social skills. And I already have a solution to make it important. Have it add to Will saves instead of Wis.

which is an intriguing solution. But what is the "in game" or fluff reason for it being based off of Cha? My understanding is spells that affect the mind are what the Will save is for. Is it force of personality or self assurance (which I often attribute to Cha)? But then I have often wondered why it is based off of Wis for the same reason. Is Wis a measure of ones willpower or Mental Fortitude or something else altogether?


Damian Magecraft wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Quote:
Do your players dump CHA? Does it bother you that they dump CHA?
Nope, doesn't bother me in the slightest. Because for most of them, it really doesn't make a difference in game. They have never asked about Leadership, so they don't even know they can't have it. They look at Cha, and see it doesn't get them anything other than social skills. And I already have a solution to make it important. Have it add to Will saves instead of Wis.
which is an intriguing solution. But what is the "in game" or fluff reason for it being based off of Cha? My understanding is spells that affect the mind are what the Will save is for. Is it force of personality or self assurance (which I often attribute to Cha)? But then I have often wondered why it is based off of Wis for the same reason. Is Wis a measure of ones willpower or Mental Fortitude or something else altogether?

Thats why i think it should be like 4th ed for saves.

Str/Con increases fort
Dex/Int increases reflex
Wis/Cha increases will

Personally, I kinda like the idea of then putting ranged attacks on wisdom and then inititive on cha.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Damian Magecraft wrote:
which is an intriguing solution. But what is the "in game" or fluff reason for it being based off of Cha? My understanding is spells that affect the mind are what the Will save is for. Is it force of personality or self assurance (which I often attribute to Cha)? But then I have often wondered why it is based off of Wis for the same reason. Is Wis a measure of ones willpower or Mental Fortitude or something else altogether?

Wisdom is how you perceive the world, Charisma is how you effect the world. While it makes sense for illusions to be resisted using the Wisdom modifer, since it represents realizing 'something is wrong', it also makes sense for Charisma meaning your mind refuses to be under the effect. More of a 'Wisdom is passive, Charisma is active'.

Quote:
Thats why i think it should be like 4th ed for saves.

My issue with that is, then characters have more dump stats.

201 to 250 of 484 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Cha, and why its a dump stat. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.