Race would also factor in what bonuses or penalties I would apply to any given situation. If a dwarf with a 5 charisma wanted to barter with a human, or even better, elven, merchant, he would probably be better off sending another party member in his place. With a fellow dwarf, however, I would probably at least cancel out the penalties, and depending on the specific circumstances, possibly give him some bonuses a non dwarf wouldn't get. In short, the charisma score would be a place to start, with further modifiers, both positive and negative, based on the exact relationship between PC and NPC.OK, just to be clear, only Dwarves aren't allowed to dump Charisma.
As long as we are on the same ridiculous page.
That's not relevant. The only way to get a 5 Charisma with point buy is be a Dwarf.
And a Fighter wouldn't be bartering with anyone himself anyway unless he couldn't help it.
I can think of plenty of situations where fighter would need to barter or get taken advantage of, and while some of them could be done via an agent of some sort, not all fighters have that option. First , a fighter that never negotiates his wage is going to come up short handed all the time; second, when buying things, the fighter who didn't negotiate a higher wage is going to face higher prices unless he gets lucky or particular circumstances make the merchant friendly toward him. Third, there will probably come a time where he has to defend himself to somebody, and a smart individual will force him to do so without the aid of allies. All of these could be mitigated by working within the same group all of the time, or making very powerful allies, or any number of simple methods, but if the player is doing it just for the extra points, and tries to ignore the consequences of his actions, he will be reminded, and he better hope it doesn't come up at a critical time for the party.
Charisma Notes
Charisma represents a number of things. As described in the books, charisma can represent force of personality, appearance (not even attractiveness), magnetism, and leadership qualities.All social based interaction revolves around the four primary social skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, and Sense Motive. Three of four are based on Charisma. Items and effects in game that deal with things such as modifying your appearance (noble clothes, parade armor, etc) all provide modifiers to these skills; not the charisma. Ergo, people do not react to people based on their Charisma, but to based on their characters interaction skills. There is no way for anyone to know what a PC's Charisma is without metagaming (GMs like you and I included), so NPCs should not treat a PC differently because we out of game know your base modifier is -2; even though you actually have a +9 when dealing with people.
...
'So leprosy is useless because it only does 1d2 points of charisma damage per week.'
Pathfinder Core Rulebook, p556, second column, last line under 'Effect' reads:
Hit point and ability score damage caused by an affliction
cannot be healed naturally while the affliction persists.So leprosy is pretty serious stuff.
Ahhh, thanks Purplefixer. I missed that. Much appreciated. ^-^
Their due is already charged in the social skills. Perhaps you would care to actually READ the cited posts?
That's not a due. Every other stat is critical for things other than a couple of skills. Charisma is the lone outlier with no real penalties for dumping.
Perhaps you would care to actually READ the breakdowns posted above?
Their due is already charged in the social skills. Perhaps you would care to actually READ the cited posts?That's not a due. Every other stat is critical for things other than a couple of skills. Charisma is the lone outlier with no real penalties for dumping.
Perhaps you would care to actually READ the breakdowns posted above?
Maybe you should read the cited posts too?
Your irrelevant breakdowns don't have anything to do with the asinine suggestions those two people posited and others agreed with.
Their due is already charged in the social skills. Perhaps you would care to actually READ the cited posts?That's not a due. Every other stat is critical for things other than a couple of skills. Charisma is the lone outlier with no real penalties for dumping.
Perhaps you would care to actually READ the breakdowns posted above?
From the other "lets be mean to people with low charisma" thread.
Well low charisma characters are easier going and more easily convinced to go along with things. A Fighter with 7 Charisma is easier to lead than a Fighter with 13 Charisma; perhaps because the 13 Charisma guy is a stubborn jerk, or too strong willed to want to help you, or something.
But any way you slice it, a pair of 7 charisma characters have no penalties socializing with each other (their penalty applies to both their rolls AND their DCs), while a low charisma character has a harder time influencing a high charisma character, while a high charisma character can more easily influence the low charisma character.
So apparently being a mean nasty ugly low down dirty sack of 7 charisma also makes you more ready to help someone out in their time of need, look the other way when you ask them nicely, or are more likely to give you directions when asked.
I though that was worth pointing out.
What's ALSO worth pointing out is that Charisma modifies social interactions. Even appearances simply modify the skill checks involved (wearing common clothing with nobles is a -2, wearing parade armor is a +2, etc). A 7 Charisma isn't really even very low. You'll make 10% less good first impressions, unless you work at overcoming your social hangups (such as learning not to put your foot in your mouth, or learning to relate to people better). A Dwarf Fighter with a 5 Charisma and has a -3 to Diplomacy and Intimidate, but by putting 1 rank in each per level, he starts with a +1 Intimidate and a -2 Diplomacy. By 3rd level, he's at +3 Intimidate, +0 Diplomacy.What's also worth pointing out, is that adjusting starting attitudes arbitrarily based on Charisma is stupid. You're already getting penalized in these areas for having a low Charisma, so upping the base DC of things is overkill. Likewise, the reverse is also stupid. If you have an 18 Charisma, you're already getting a +4 to all social based checks, so automatically starting people at Helpful is dumb.
Charisma serves a purpose in the game. It mildly affects everyone, and strongly affects some. What I mean by mildly is a Fighter does not get much for having a high charisma, but he doesn't lose much for having a low one. A Paladin however feels differently. It's also a solid balancing feature. Imagine if you will if Paladins got divine grace and smite evil off STRENGTH instead of the relatively mild Charisma. Whoo-boy, Paladins would be Narshty!
Really, it pains me to see so much spite in my fellow hobbyists, and of all the things, it's about someone else having a -2 instead of a +0. Tsk.
Your irrelevant breakdowns
How are they irrlevant to the utopic of dumping Cha? This word may not mean what you think it means.
Yes, you've knocked down plenty of incoherent "arguments" and lousy suggestions, but you have yet to address the real issue.
Your irrelevant breakdownsHow are they irrlevant to the utopic of dumping Cha? This word may not mean what you think it means.
Yes, you've knocked down plenty of incoherent "arguments" and lousy suggestions, but you have yet to address the real issue.
The real problem of Charisma being useless? Yeah, already addressed that twice.
The real problem of Charisma being useless? Yeah, already addressed that twice.
You said, "Let people pick whether to use Cha or Wis for Will saves." However, for pretty much all PCs, Perception is far and away the most important skill in the game. Therefore anyone with half a brain will keep Wis at a relatively even level, and continue to dump Charisma as low as possible. All you do by offering this "choice" is to improve bards' and sorcerers' Will saves.
Make all Will saves Cha-based, like it or not, and then find a use for Wisdom. That might work.
Or else find a use for Charisma.
Or merge the two stats.
The real problem of Charisma being useless? Yeah, already addressed that twice.You said, "Let people pick whether to use Cha or Wis for Will saves." However, for pretty much all PCs, Perception is far and away the most important skill in the game.
But no one is not dumping Wisdom because of Perception. You can put skill points in Perception. Just like you can put skill points in social skills, though "role-player" DMs are falling all over themselves to find a way to force people to use social skills or otherwise penalize people because they don't.
Therefore anyone with half a brain will keep Wis at a relatively even level, and continue to dump Charisma as low as possible. All you do by offering this "choice" is to improve bards' and sorcerers' Will saves.
1) Who cares if it does?
2) Maybe they will keep dumping Charisma, but it now opens up an option that is a carrot and not an asinine stick. Charisma suddenly becomes an ability score that has an actual effect on keeping you alive thus choosing to not dump Charisma becomes an option. Especially for classes with Perception as a class skill.
You can put skill points in Perception. Just like you can put skill points in social skills.
Unlike social skills like Diplomacy with its static DCs, Perception is more often an opposed check against deadly opposition (ambush predators, etc.). Perception therefore needs to be jacked up as high as is easily practicable, in order to keep meeting those ever more difficult DCs as you level. In contrast, the social skills quickly "cap out" in usefulness, so that a few more skill points make no difference at all.
Fixing Charisma probably requires both giving various mechanical advantages to Charisma (most likely allowing Charisma to stand for will saves) and fixing the non-scaling nature of 3.x social skills.
I personally like the (Str or Con = Fort, Int or Dex = Ref, Cha or Wis = Will) change incorporated in 4e but as Kirth indicated Perception is still an unbalanced skill so many characters will still go with wisdom instead of dumping it. That being said I think it does allow people to do the swashbuckler with a lot of charisma but the wisdom of a turnip, i.e. Valeros without being incredibly gimped mechanically.
4e also made significant improvements to the Skill DC mechanics in comparison to 3.x, especially with skills like Diplomacy. By having 3 DCs that scale with level it's possible to set threshholds that represent easy, medium and hard tasks. In that system the differencein success rates between a rogue trained in a skill that has a good ability modifier and a pc without skill training and a poor modifier is quite significant.
However 3.x simply has way to many potential skill check bonuses so that a negative to a social stat simply doesn't register past low level.
Combining Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate into a combined social skill (Manipulation or Influence, etc) and setting it to be opposed by Sense Motive/Insight might help some because opposed skill checks scale better than static DCs but it's still not a great solution.
Honestly I think the only real way to incentivize Charisma enough is to have Charisma somehow influence HP recovery. As it's pretty apparent that Charisma at least partially reflects strength of spirit the ability to use Charisma to enable the PC to dig deep within them self and recover lost stamina and HPs.
Plus it would allow for the added benefit of incorporating decentralized healing with a non-magical mechanical effect ala Reserve Points, Healing Surges, etc.
You can put skill points in Perception. Just like you can put skill points in social skills.Unlike social skills like Diplomacy with its static DCs, Perception is more often an opposed check against deadly opposition (ambush predators, etc.). Perception therefore needs to be jacked up as high as is easily practicable, in order to keep meeting those ever more difficult DCs as you level.
Perception is a class skill. I put 1 point in it. I have countered my -3 from Wisdom forever. Sure, I don't have an extra +3, but I don't have a penalty any more. And not that many classes had Perception anyway. How many of them were going to spot the major hardcore opposed rolls anyway without luck of the draw? And failing a perception roll won't directly get you killed. You haven't provided any argument that making Charisma an alternate option for Will saves would still result in players always dumping Charisma. Yes, your perception would be worse, so? No one dumps Wisdom because of Will saves, not Perception.
I think the argument that Kirth is trying to make is that the Fighter with Str-17, Dex-13, Con-14, Int-10, Wis-12, Cha-8 is better off mechanically than the Fighter with Str-17, Dex-13, Con-14, Int-10, Wis-8, Cha-12 even if you allow Charisma to be used for Will saves.
This is because the weighted value of wisdom linked skills (notably perception and sense motive) vs the value of charisma linked skill (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate). While a +2 to perception checks vs the Wis-8 wiseguy isn't that significant at high level when the sheer number of perception modifiers come into play at low levels when the d20 is more important that 10% modifier can result in significant advantages.
Personally 100% balanced abilities are likely impossible and furthermore not completely desirable but I do think that fixing Charisma requires more than just allowing Charisma modifier to impact Will saves.
in the interest of honesty- i gave up reading halfway through the posts, so if someone else already said this i apologize.
the bottom line is that if a stat doesn't matter in your game its completely your (or your GM's) fault. every stat has penalties for being a dump, including charisma. many people don't bother with npc reaction charts or diplomacy rolls and, obviously, that makes charisma seem like a good option for dumping. if you ran a campaign with no combat people would dump physical stats, if nobody ever needed (or got to) roll a skill check people would dump int...
if you want to penalize players for having low cha, use the rules. having one sor/pal/bard may be enough to find work and buy/sell gear, but a party with 1 or 2 cha scores <8 will quickly develop a reputation in any town or city (as unbearable jerks) which will make life hard on their token cha guy. it is also a weakness that npc's can exploit. a clever band of rogues (with good bluff checks) might start claiming bounties that the reviled pc's earned but are unable to convince the (probably unfriendly or even hostile) townspeople of; or a charismatic villain might begin rallying support against the pc's from neighboring city-states while they find themselves increasingly ally-less and surrounded by rumors and allegations of backstabbing and unsearchable wickedness....
|
See Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate.
Let's forget for a moment that you are proving my point about making up fluff for Charisma and then punishing the player for it.
I have seen them, and I've read them. They apply to very specific circumstances.
If your group decides to ignore role playing, feel free.
I think the argument that Kirth is trying to make is that the Fighter with Str-17, Dex-13, Con-14, Int-10, Wis-12, Cha-8 is better off mechanically than the Fighter with Str-17, Dex-13, Con-14, Int-10, Wis-8, Cha-12 even if you allow Charisma to be used for Will saves.
This is because the weighted value of wisdom linked skills (notably perception and sense motive) vs the value of charisma linked skill (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate). While a +2 to perception checks vs the Wis-8 wiseguy isn't that significant at high level when the sheer number of perception modifiers come into play at low levels when the d20 is more important that 10% modifier can result in significant advantages.
Personally 100% balanced abilities are likely impossible and furthermore not completely desirable but I do think that fixing Charisma requires more than just allowing Charisma modifier to impact Will saves.
Whose Stealth are you going to be beating without Perception as a class skill or a really high Wisdom?
|
I don't penalize dumpstats. I figure they come with their own built-in penalties. The wizard with the low strength can't carry much. The bard with the low Wisdom is likely to be a victim of a deception he never saw coming. And anyone with a low Charisma has some difficulty in interactions.
I don't look for creatures that specifically attack the party's weaknesses... UNLESS the enemy is doing it. A sufficiently prepared BBEG knowing he would have to deal with a low STR Wizard will probably try to employ STR draining poisons, for example.
The only time a dumpstat became at all an issue was when a player of a Charisma dumpstatted Druid picked an extremely attractive picture for his character. He argued that Charisma isn't all about appearance and I agreed... but it had SOMETHING to do with appearance.... or his character would have to have some seriously atrocious personal habits. Given a choice of finding a more reasonable picture or preferring a nice coating of fresh dung to clothing, he opted for the more reasonable approach.
Before someone jumps in to say how they'd let a 7 Charisma character use Adrianna Lima's pic as a character portrait, I'd like to say "More power to you." This is one of those areas that are definitely left open to GM adjudication. I wouldn't argue with your ruling at your table.
Am I the only person not reading this thread in a vacuum? I am responding to what other people have said and posited. Multiple other people.
Yeah, but when you start quoting me then thats not 'other people' is it. If you cite someones comments, then you are inviting them to respond, and this the conversation becomes about what bits you pick out.
Here's another solution.
Every time you have a player that gives a character a 7 CHA, paint a unibrow and mullet on their miniature. After a couple of times with that, they'll change their tune.
Aside from anything else, I do find that suggestion pretty funny :p
This is Tahlumilali Auvreaanea my elven barbarian with a 7 charisma. He speaks in a round about manner normally not asking direct questions and is covered in tribal tattoos from the neck down.
Though I'm sure there are a number of posters here who think I am playing him horribly and that I am a horrible min/maxer and don't consider me a roleplayer and if you feel that way fine not my problem you can believe that ever you want. I will always know the truth of me and my characters.
Actually I think you play him about spot on for what I'd expect from a 7 CHA guy with little to no social skills - he is a snarky desert runner and so far its all been pretty spot on.
Similarly, when confronted with a 'social situation' you don't seem to expect to be treated like the most dashing prince charming, whereas some of these other guys seem to think their 7 CHA shouldn't come into play, and feel persecuted when it does.
So no I don't object to your character; you deliberately chose a prickly type with a gruff and grouchy personality, and you play it accordingly - you took your stats, and graciously take the lumps that come with the choices :)
Similarly, when confronted with a 'social situation' you don't seem to expect to be treated like the most dashing prince charming, whereas some of these other guys seem to think their 7 CHA shouldn't come into play, and feel persecuted when it does.
Wait, who here has said they want their cha 7 player to be a dashing prince charming in a social situation? The thread exploded pretty quickly, so its possible I skimmed over the post without really seeing it, but I'm pretty sure nobody made that argument. All I've seen are arguments not to arbitrarily punish players for a low charisma outside of what they already face for their lack of social skills, and also not to punish everyone else in the party for one character having bad social skills.
All I've seen are arguments not to arbitrarily punish players for a low charisma outside of what they already face for their lack of social skills, and also not to punish everyone else in the party for one character having bad social skills.
And in the main, the only 'punishment' so far that has been a popular solution is to apply a negative reaction to the low CHA guy in the same way that Mr Silvertongue gets a good reaction. Apparently NPC's treating the LowCHA PC as though he is a goon or a flunky is somehow 'punishing the whole party' etc.
If you have a party member with low CHA, then all that player has to do is be quiet in social encounters and try to just stay unnoticed, that should avoid him making any social faux-pas and having to make a potentially disastrous Dip check. It's up to the party to cover for his weakness, the same as its probably up to the big lug LowCHA bruiser to save the party Mage in a bar-brawl.
They each have their place, but for some reason the CHADUMPERS seem to want it not to happen.
All I've seen are arguments not to arbitrarily punish players for a low charisma outside of what they already face for their lack of social skills, and also not to punish everyone else in the party for one character having bad social skills.And in the main, the only 'punishment' so far that has been a popular solution is to apply a negative reaction to the low CHA guy in the same way that Mr Silvertongue gets a good reaction. Apparently NPC's treating the LowCHA PC as though he is a goon or a flunky is somehow 'punishing the whole party' etc.
If you have a party member with low CHA, then all that player has to do is be quiet in social encounters and try to just stay unnoticed, that should avoid him making any social faux-pas and having to make a potentially disastrous Dip check. It's up to the party to cover for his weakness, the same as its probably up to the big lug LowCHA bruiser to save the party Mage in a bar-brawl.
They each have their place, but for some reason the CHADUMPERS seem to want it not to happen.
No, the suggestion for punishing the party was to have all characters take a penalty to social skills if their companions had a charisma penalty, even if they weren't in the same room. Also tossed about was the idea of having a low charisma character automatically make people on the streets hostile to him, without taking into account social skills.
If a character with a 7 charisma gets looked down on at a store and has to put up with a longer wait, or embarrasses himself before a king and forces the bard to cover for him, that's one thing. In a class based game some characters will shine in different situations than others, that situation would be for a charming character to shine and make up for his uncouth companion. However, if that same character makes the 16 charisma paladin have trouble getting a shopkeeper's attention even when not in the same room, or automatically makes people he meets on the street dislike him or act hostile to him, that's something completely different.
I removed a post. Really folks, it isn't hard to be nice to one another.
No, the suggestion for punishing the party was to have all characters take a penalty to social skills if their companions had a charisma penalty, even if they weren't in the same room.
Which I'd agree was pure bunkum.
I haven't seen a lot of call for that though.
Perception is a class skill. I put 1 point in it. I have countered my -3 from Wisdom forever. Sure, I don't have an extra +3, but I don't have a penalty any more. And not that many classes had Perception anyway. How many of them were going to spot the major hardcore opposed rolls anyway without luck of the draw? And failing a perception roll won't directly get you killed. You haven't provided any argument that making Charisma an alternate option for Will saves would still result in players always dumping Charisma. Yes, your perception would be worse, so? No one dumps Wisdom because of Will saves, not Perception.
And Cartigan displays, once again, a clearly superior knowledge of the game and how the "world" functions.
No, the suggestion for punishing the party was to have all characters take a penalty to social skills if their companions had a charisma penalty, even if they weren't in the same room. Also tossed about was the idea of having a low charisma character automatically make people on the streets hostile to him, without taking into account social skills.
Honestly, are people still frothing over that? I made the suggestion, and later admitted 'automatic' initial reaction was a bad idea. So the one proponent of the idea has dropped it.
Even then, on the chart I posited, "Hostile" reactions happened at CHA 3 (-4 CHA mod). Not exactly a common stat score. Someone with CHA 3 is basically a walking disaster.
No, the suggestion for punishing the party was to have all characters take a penalty to social skills if their companions had a charisma penalty, even if they weren't in the same room. Also tossed about was the idea of having a low charisma character automatically make people on the streets hostile to him, without taking into account social skills.
Honestly, are people still frothing over that? I made the suggestion, and later admitted 'automatic' initial reaction was a bad idea. So the one proponent of the idea has dropped it.
Even then, on the chart I posited, "Hostile" reactions happened at CHA 3 (-4 CHA mod). Not exactly a common stat score. Someone with CHA 3 is basically a walking disaster.
Unless you can provide proof to that statement, then what you say is meaningless; and comparing it to Jon Otaguru's post before yours, it definitely sounds stupid.
If you look at statistics, rolling 3d6 gives 216 chances.
Rolling a
3 has 1 chance in 216
4 has 3 chances in 216
5 has 6 chances in 216If people are created as a bell curve by rolling 3d6 stats, then
1 out of 216 people have a 3 charisma
1 out of 54 people have 3 or 4 charisma
1 out of 21.6 people have a 5 or lower charisma.Basically saying that in school, more than 1 kid in a class of 30 (approximately 1.5 kids) would have a charisma of 5 or less.
Now, when I went to school, there were some bullies, some shy people, but very few troll hunchbacks that people would infer a low charisma person to embody.
If you look at character creation, even a guy with a 3 charisma is someone you are likely to have interacted with in your life - and possibly lots of 3 charisma people. You definately would have interacted with lots of 5 charisma people in your life.
Definately dumping charisma is something I agree with because the rules don't assess the same importance to charisma as other stats - and when you think of things statistically, if 1 in 21.6 people have 3-5 charisma, then a 5 charisma is in actuality not rare at all.
I'm wondering how a DM can make Fighter types think twice about making Charisma their dump stat. Any ideas on Charisma draining effects from creatures, spells, effects, ect...ect..?"My characters arn't making highly charismatic Fighters; how can I shaft them for it?"
OH MY GOD! I'm not shafting anyone for having a low Charisma. Just thinking of what draw backs there are aside from NPC interactions.
Here's another solution.
Every time you have a player that gives a character a 7 CHA, paint a unibrow and mullet on their miniature. After a couple of times with that, they'll change their tune.
LOL. Thats funny, extreme but funny!
I'm wondering how a DM can make Fighter types think twice about making Charisma their dump stat. Any ideas on Charisma draining effects from creatures, spells, effects, ect...ect..?
Im playing an alchemist with 2 charisma( svirfneblin with a -4 to cha), and i cant speak common either. Makes for some excellent RP.
All you need to do is put in some curses/plagues/diseases etc that affect charisma and boom - KO until those points are restored.
But then again why do you want to stop this person form having cha as their dump stat, you can play around with this. There are a number of skills that require cha, have the party in a situation where they need to make some important checks.
I find when GMing that i need to play both to the strengths and weaknesses of the party. I realized that noone had any points in climb so i had a urban chase that involved a lot of climbing. Noone had riding, we had some mounted combat.
Players normally have dump stats or dump skills if they feel they are unimportant. If they feel they are unimportant then you probably haven't done enough to include those skills. I know the next game I run, i will make sure from the start that a bit of everything is required instead of just adding it in as we go.
I'm not sure if this has been included, but the charm spells use a lot of opposed charisma checks. If you throw a lot of those in your game, you can make pretty good use of a dumped charisma score.
I guess I don't see any trouble. If someone wants to take a 7 Charisma so they can bank a 20 Strength, let them. A 20 Strength doesn't keep them out of jail when they are framed for murder and can't defend themselves.
If you're lettnig them roleplay like average gamer intelligence (which i've learned goes down in groups, like the opposite of cranium rats), then it's the GM that's screwing up. You should be saying things like "Your heart is in the right place when you appeal to the constable, but he seems more fixated on your breath, or that huge childhood scar, than your actual words.", or "You give your speech about returning the slaves, but as usual, your eyes are cast down, and when you finally have the courage to look the slave-master in the eye, his expression is one of building fury. It seems he doesn't buy your story."
The most important thing is what kind of GM are you. Are you just sick of optimizers? because it's a fair way to play the game. Are you always looking to get over on your players and so this behavior developed ut of that adversarial relationship?
Punish characters with exposable weaknesses as a matter of story. Get them with villains because of villainy. Use their alignment against them as a matter of telling a good story that forces tough decisions. But if you're bummed about their style of play, recognize it's not always they that need to change. Your job is to entertain them, and that will be fun for you when it happens. Punishing people just cause their style of play matches your own will rob the joy from your campaign (for everyone) faster than just about anything else.
Now, if you really think everything else is okay and you really just want mechanics that impact Charisma, then obvious choices include poison, modifying spells that down ability scores (ray of enfeeblemindedment), and monsters that specifically batter low Cha characters, like ghosts.
The real problem of Charisma being useless? Yeah, already addressed that twice.Your irrelevant breakdownsHow are they irrlevant to the utopic of dumping Cha? This word may not mean what you think it means.
Yes, you've knocked down plenty of incoherent "arguments" and lousy suggestions, but you have yet to address the real issue.
Kith doesn't need me to come to his defense, but I think anyone that says Charisma is useless doesn't really understand the versatility of this game.
I run Rokugan game using Pathfinder rules every Monday. An Oriental Adventures game makes broad use of Charisma for everyone. The only spellcasters use Charisma. Court can get you killed.
Now, that's a specific setting, and not most games. But it's not too hard to see that Charisma is just as important to a flexible, fun game as any other statstic. You don't have to be playing l5r for Charisma to have great meaning.
|
I'm wondering how a DM can make Fighter types think twice about making Charisma their dump stat. Any ideas on Charisma draining effects from creatures, spells, effects, ect...ect..?
I actually see Intelligence as the dump stat for fighters. I would want Charisma for intimidate on a fighter. I don't want a low wisdom penalizing will saves.
Unless you can provide proof to that statement, then what you say is meaningless;
Even then, on the chart I posited, "Hostile" reactions happened at CHA 3 (-4 CHA mod). Not exactly a common stat score. Someone with CHA 3 is basically a walking disaster.
What, that someone with CHA 3 is a 'basically a walking disaster'? What would constitute proof for you? This is the BOTTOM of the chart, in human terms. This is as bad as human appearance, personality, and ability to lead gets (naturally). Think about how bad that can get.
Also, I reject the idea that the general population can be represented on a 3D6 bell curve. Unless you can provide proof of that assumption, of course :-D
What, that someone with CHA 3 is a 'basically a walking disaster'? What would constitute proof for you?
Game mechanics and written rules to support that assertion, vs. DM fiat and fluffy hand-waving?
What, that someone with CHA 3 is a 'basically a walking disaster'? What would constitute proof for you?Game mechanics and written rules to support that assertion, vs. DM fiat and fluffy hand-waving?
Well, the first Player Character generation method in the core book, the 4d6 drop lowest version, has a 1 in 1296 chance of generating a 3 in an ability score. Since each character has 6 abilities, 1 in 216 Player Characters, who are supposed to be above the average person in ability, have a 3 in an ability score.
Still, you could make an argument that NPCs are usually built with a 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8 array, as the PRD recommends for basic NPCs, a simplification on the uniqueness of individuals but not a terrible one. Using those same charts though you see that other than an arcane or divine NPC nobody takes a charisma above 9, meaning the majority of Dwarven craftsmen(experts/skilled NPC) and warriors(melee or ranged NPC), will have a 7 or 6 charisma, other races will have a 9 or 8 charisma, while every single gnome in existence will have at least a 10. So a gnome of any kind will be received better than an average human guard or craftsman, and much better than a dwarf of any kind, if charisma was all that went into it.
Even assuming no ordinary NPC will have a Charisma below 6, which Dwarves usually will, I think initial reaction needs to rely on something other than just pure Charisma. A Ghoul has a 14 charisma, but if someone makes a ghoul PC there is no way that the random people they meet would treat them as anything other than hostile at first meeting. Also a drider has a higher charisma than an average drow, a 16 compared to a 10, a Derro has a higher charisma than a dwarf, duergar, or svirfneblin with a 16 compared to 6, 4, or 8, but I doubt would be received well in any location.
Well, the first Player Character generation method in the core book, the 4d6 drop lowest version, has a 1 in 1296 chance of generating a 3 in an ability score.What, that someone with CHA 3 is a 'basically a walking disaster'? What would constitute proof for you?Game mechanics and written rules to support that assertion, vs. DM fiat and fluffy hand-waving?
The odds don't matter. If 1 in a billion characters had a negative fifty Charisma, but a score of -50 was functionally indistinguishable from a score of 16 except for some minor description text, then -50 is in no way a "walking disaster," much less a 3.
The odds don't matter. If 1 in a billion characters had a negative fifty Charisma, but a score of -50 was functionally indistinguishable from a score of 16 except for some minor description text, then -50 is in no way a "walking disaster," much less a 3.Well, the first Player Character generation method in the core book, the 4d6 drop lowest version, has a 1 in 1296 chance of generating a 3 in an ability score.What, that someone with CHA 3 is a 'basically a walking disaster'? What would constitute proof for you?Game mechanics and written rules to support that assertion, vs. DM fiat and fluffy hand-waving?
I'd say a low cha is really just an annoying or gross person. That guy on the buss that smells funny or that jerk you couldn't wait to get away from.
Well playing a svinefblin with a cha of 2, I'm caustic to all I meet. If I try to talk to anyone, I'll annoy / disgust them. Want to buy a sword, better convince a party member to do it for me, because I'm bound to get the NPC's pissed off and I can forget a fair bargain. I end up bribing fellow PCs to interact with NPCs with me as required.
Town guards want to question us, guess what, i play dumb and let other do taking for me, which is convenient because i cant speak common anyway...
Anyone in customer service who has a horror story about the worst client they ever had to deal with, that person has a 2 cha :P
A lot of people here have absolutely no idea what the difference between "crunch" and "fluff" is, do they?
Sometimes, man.
Okay, so there's really an argument over how useless Charisma is? Folks, listen to the Sensei. Tailor your game to your palyers. THey are the stars, you get joy out of knowing what changes and what's coming next. If you don't like to direct, or you don't want to work with union actors - quit.
Charisma is as useful as you want it to be in your game, keeping in mind that your job is to give all these Dorito-munching, Dew-mooching a-holes a memorable time.
(This is not a reference to how Tim Hitchcock stayed in beer money at school, I am talking about running a roleplaying game).
If they dump Charisma and have your encounters over a barrel, float them a ghost once or twice in the campaign. A good ghost story that is extra scary because all your player...erm..characters are superstitious half-orcs. But don't spend time every week getting even with their min-maxing. They are players. It's what they do: download books off the internet, steal your food, show up late and fudge their dice rolls to crit when they really need it. All you have to do is let them have fun while telling a mean story that makes them think (or at least call you names) at least one time the WHOOOLE campaign.
If you want Charisma to be importnat, make it happen. If you are focused on combat and your palyers have no chance at outsmarting you (lookni at you, Kirth), then Charisma probably does NOT mean anything in your game.
As an aside, Kirth is dead on about the value of skills that require mostly opposed rolls, or have direct Combat use. The two dumps for most characters are Int and Cha, but even Int impacts all your skills. The question isn't whether you accept his assesment of the imbalanced roll of the skills. THe question is how will you make Charimsa more important in your game if you're tired of seeing it dumped.
And I don't really have a low opinion of players. I just haven't seen Mr. Fishy post in this thread yet.
Okay, so there's really an argument over how useless Charisma is? Folks, listen to the Sensei. Tailor your game to your palyers.
However as long as they all have dump stat CHA, the only place you can tailor the adventure in is the local sewer and swamp... where such charmless troglodytes can thrive.
That said, I build campaigns in which the characters are the stars, but the campaigns go where they do and tend to be very broad - it tends to suck if you are too highly specialised as you can go a whole session sitting around doing nothing because you specialised yourself into uselessness.
I warn them at the start, fortunately, barring a few exceptions who thought they were simply there to play some kinda tactical mini's game, people have thrived and done well.
The odds don't matter. If 1 in a billion characters had a negative fifty Charisma, but a score of -50 was functionally indistinguishable from a score of 16 except for some minor description text, then -50 is in no way a "walking disaster," much less a 3.Well, the first Player Character generation method in the core book, the 4d6 drop lowest version, has a 1 in 1296 chance of generating a 3 in an ability score.What, that someone with CHA 3 is a 'basically a walking disaster'? What would constitute proof for you?Game mechanics and written rules to support that assertion, vs. DM fiat and fluffy hand-waving?
Well, I can't say whether a specific stat of 3 would be a walking disaster or not, since that's up to how the DM and players fluff their scores, though if a 3 in a score made a character a walking disaster than 1 in 216 otherwise above average people would be a walking disaster by the character creation rules.
Okay, so there's really an argument over how useless Charisma is? Folks, listen to the Sensei. Tailor your game to your palyers.However as long as they all have dump stat CHA, the only place you can tailor the adventure in is the local sewer and swamp... where such charmless troglodytes can thrive.
Well, it's not really that drastic, though without a great deal of skill, money, or noble blood you probably won't see them being invited to nobles' homes for parties and social events. A human with a 7 or 8 charisma only deviates a little from the "average" of 10, and could represent that in many ways.
Maybe they're otherwise well spoken and confident but are ugly as sin, or maybe they're gorgeous noble types who are so arrogant, off putting, and clueless about dealing with people that they leave everyone around them muttering behind their back. Or, since those scores average for a dwarf, they could just be dour, or introverted, or just so ordinary and mundane that they draw even less notice than a normal person would.