Now, there are classes that specialize in each of the abilities, but each of them also has built-in reasons for wanting them to be high. While not everyone needs every ability, they are universally punished for dumping any given ability... except for Charisma. Here, let me show you:
Strength: Encumbrance, melee attack/damage, CMB, skills useful to everyone.
Dex: AC, Ref save, ranged attack (including some spells), skills useful to everyone.
Constitution: HP, Fort save, buffer from death vs. con damage/drain (vs mere KO in the case of the other ability scores)
Intelligence: skill ranks
Wisdom: Will save, skills useful to everyone.
And:
Charisma: ...
Nothing not role-centric. Only characters with Cha-centric abilities and the face character have any reason to have Charisma above 1, and that's not a fair comparison since all the abilities have class abilities based off them. A fighter with a Charisma of 1, for example, isn't any worse at what he does than a fighter with a 10 or an 18 in it, but he can't get away with a score of 1 in anything else without paying for it (Dex means his AC and Ref save are suffering, Wis and his already-poor Will save is even worse, Int 1 and Int 8 aren't any different, true, but Int 8 and Int 10 are, and obviously he can't dump Str or Con). The same goes for the Wizard, Barbarian, Rogue, Druids (Wild Empathy excepted), Clerics (Channeling excepted), Monks, and Rangers (Wild Empathy excepted), and if a Sorcerer could get away with switching to Int, he would be a fool not to.
In other words, I'd like to give Charisma a few more built-in benefits, at least one that everyone would like. Thoughts?
Charisma is a stat that everyone needs. It's up to the DM to enforce it, just as they do encumbrance for the wizard.
Charisma is the stat of communication with other people. Most player interaction doesn't require it but in ANY NPC communication Charisma is the star.
(will use Fighter here since those are the usual culprits, but it doesn't necessarily have to be them).
The trick is to occasionally have the fighter do things that require him to interact with NPCs in a meaningful way, without the party spokesperson along for the ride.
Maybe he needs to buy a new sword.
Maybe the Queen speaks to each character before giving them their just reward for saving (whatever it is they saved).
Maybe he's having to explain to the cleric of Pelor why it really is in his best interest to cast (insert useful revivication spell here) on the Fighter's disabled ally.
THe point here isn't to create "stupid" or "punishing' situations for the character. The point is to make it known that some basic things are required for each character.
You would not pull a pit trap just because the wizard's STR is too low to climb knotted rope.
Why would you pull social encounters just because someone decided to dump the stat for it?
It is important not to PUNISH the person (by repeatedly forcing them to fail at things), but don't go out of your way to hand-waive the times when their handicap will come into issue.
-S
Charisma is as usless in a low-social campaign as wisdom is in a low-magic campaign or strength in a low-combat game.
I never play any characters with Charisma lower than 12 and usually quite a lot more. With the exception of Wisdom, it's the only ability score I couldn't imagine using as a dump stat.
True, when you have a campaign were charisma isn't meaningfull because there's no social interaction for most characters, it's mostly useless. But if you play such a campaign, what's the problem with having dump stats?
I agree that Charisma is a very DM-dependent stat. Essentially, it allows DMs to obscure the railroad by allowing the players to accomplish advancing the plot, rather than have the plot spoon-fed to them.
However, I also agree that it would be keen to have a "luck" component to Charisma through the action point dynamic.
I agree that CHA does not give as much benefit as other stats.
I am in favor of adding something to the mechanics that would be CHA-based...
... but I am against changing actual rules to replace another stat bonus with CHA. (mostly because of backward compatibility)
Something new is always nice, but be careful with balance. AP is a good idea, but it would need lot of playtesting to find the right amount.
However, I also agree that it would be keen to have a "luck" component to Charisma through the action point dynamic.
In my games there are frequent (1-2 times per session per party) luck rolls: d20 + Cha modifier. It has worked wonders.
While not everyone needs every ability, they are universally punished for dumping any given ability... except for Charisma. Here, let me show you:
Strength: Encumbrance, melee attack/damage, CMB, skills useful to everyone.
...
A fighter with a Charisma of 1, for example, isn't any worse at what he does than a fighter with a 10 or an 18 in it, but he can't get away with a score of 1 in anything else without paying for it (Dex means his AC and Ref save are suffering, Wis and his already-poor Will save is even worse, Int 1 and Int 8 aren't any different, true, but Int 8 and Int 10 are, and obviously he can't dump Str or Con).
Three things:
1) Unless you roll your stats, a 5 is as low as it gets. Even if you do roll, getting a stat turn out a 1 is quite unlikely.2) I'd say Strength is as much a dump stat for wizards or sorcerers as Charisma is for fighters. Are we going to upgrade Strength as well, just so they don't dump it?
3) Cha-based skills can be just as useful or useless as Str-based skills. I consider that a non-argument.
Foolish, stupid, sickly, feeble and clumsy combatants are all less capable than counterparts without those drawbacks.
An ugly or rude combatant isn't. He's just as good at fighting and survival as one with better social graces.
That's reality. Or, err, that's an annoying vestage of reality that has accompanied us into our fantasy.
I think everyone here has an alternate d20 system or five "in the works" (meaning, they'll probably never finish it but it's fun to think about). In mine, charisma applies as a bonus or penalty to all saves against magic.
This just has to do with how magic works, and with charisma representing your "aura" or personal presence in a metaphysical sense.
In standard D&D, this would probably be overkill, but I could see something like it working.
Three things:
1) Unless you roll your stats, a 5 is as low as it gets. Even if you do roll, getting a stat turn out a 1 is quite unlikely.
Yes, I know, I was making a point.
2) I'd say Strength is as much a dump stat for wizards or sorcerers as Charisma is for fighters. Are we going to upgrade Strength as well, just so they don't dump it?
No, it's really not. Encumbrance can really be an issue if the DM bothers to enforce it, whereas there's really nothing to enforce in the case of low Charisma: sure, you could arrange the situation such that everyone gets split up and has to make diplomacy checks on their own, but that's an artifice and looks like you're gunning for the PC, whereas it's a natural consequence of low Str that you're going to have trouble carrying all those scrolls and wands and potions. There should be a similar natural consequence to low Cha that doesn't make the DM change the way the campaign is played.
3) Cha-based skills can be just as useful or useless as Str-based skills. I consider that a non-argument.
It adds to climb and swim. If the party ever comes up against a wall or a body of water, everyone has to worry about getting over or across. On the other hand, if the party ever needs to talk to someone, only the face has to worry about having a decent Charisma. The DM has to go out of his way to make low Charisma an issue, whereas he doesn't have to do that with the other stats.
I actually really dig the Action Point idea, though I really don't think it would be all that tricky to balance. Tear it straight out of Eberron and change the number you get per level to 4 + Charisma modifier (min 1) or something and you're set.
It adds to climb and swim. If the party ever comes up against a wall or a body of water, everyone has to worry about getting over or across. On the other hand, if the party ever needs to talk to someone, only the face has to worry about having a decent Charisma. The DM has to go out of his way to make low Charisma an issue, whereas he doesn't have to do that with the other stats.
I think the best way to phrase this would be to say that strength can be tested without splitting up the party (particularly against multi-limbed grapplers), while charisma can't.
The fighter can carry the wizard's loot for him, but he can't roll his grapple checks or attacks of opportunity for him. While, on the other hand, the thief can always speak for the fighter (unless you split them up).
Which, of course, is silly- in a real party the fighter would occassionally wish to speak for himself, if only while making his case known within the party, but in D&D this is never an issue. In my experience, the handling of inter-party dynamics is half-IC at best. The fighter isn't at a disadvantage if he is rude, abrasive and stinky because his player isn't.
Hell, OoC, his player could really be the party 'leader', always proposing plans and taking initiative. I've seen this happen.
But then, if we were going to make the fighter roleplay his character in an antisocial manner within the party, then we've also got to make the barbarian play with a dim grasp of tactics and have mandated moments of idiocy for that bard who dumped WIS. Which at this point goes beyond my prefered playstyle as a dm, and more importantly, beyond the bounds of the conversation (because even if all three stats had roleplaying consequences, fact would remain that INT and WIS have mechanical consequences on top of those, and CHA doesn't). So just pretend I stopped talking three paragraphs ago.
Personally, as a player, I've never favored dumping CHA. Charisma is your "style" stat. To me, it represents your characters apparent level of awesomeness, and I'm no more likely to dump that than anything else.
If you play D&D for only the combat, then yes, Charisma is effectively useless... other than for the three classes who use it for some of their primary abilities (Sorcerer, Paladin, Cleric), and for the class that uses it for a lot of its abilities (Rogues and skills). But even then, who in the world plays D&D for only the combat?
INT and WIS have out of combat consequences too. The difference is that they also have in-combat consequences, and CHA doesn't.
All my players roleplay, but not all of them roll social skill checks. That's just our playstyle.
I disagree. The rogue can be the most smooth-faced liar on the planet, if the fighter standing behind him looks guilty as hell that *is* going to affect the rogue (Face didn't take BA along when conning someone unless he needed some brawn as leverage, if I remember the A-team correctly).
This isn't in the rules, nor am I convinced it should be. The party as a whole is being penalized, rather than you in particular. Specifically, the rogue's getting his shtick penalized. It would be like the wizard getting his spell DCs ganked because the fighter had a low Wis.
At the moment one of my characters is a Half-Orc Barbarian/Rogue with Cha 7. Well, I enjoy playing an arrogant son of a... an orc who totally messes up anything where social skill is needed. Cha is really a RP ability...
I disagree. The rogue can be the most smooth-faced liar on the planet, if the fighter standing behind him looks guilty as hell that *is* going to affect the rogue (Face didn't take BA along when conning someone unless he needed some brawn as leverage, if I remember the A-team correctly).This isn't in the rules, nor am I convinced it should be. ...
If a party of four men (one scrawny, one beefy, one dressed in black and one dressed in white) approaches you, you may attempt to use the sense motive skill against any one of them. That's in the rules.
A fighter can't directly fail a rogue's bluff check, however. You never get a rective sense motive against the fighter unless he speaks.
Okay, I see your point, although now that I think of it, the Bard has lots of combat abilities based on Charisma. So how about that as an idea: some more Charisma-based abilities that are useful in combat? Intimidate is a nigh-useless ability right now. Perhaps it should do more in combat or have a longer effect or something?INT and WIS have out of combat consequences too. The difference is that they also have in-combat consequences, and CHA doesn't.
All my players roleplay, but not all of them roll social skill checks. That's just our playstyle.
Oh, there are lots of rewards for a good charisma score (though I'd always welcome more). The thread was started because there aren't any penalties for a bad one.
Maybe I should have picked a more specific word than "consequences".
If a party of four men (one scrawny, one beefy, one dressed in black and one dressed in white) approaches you, you may attempt to use the sense motive skill against any one of them. That's in the rules.
Sure, but it isn't going to do you much good, most of the time. "What's up with him?" "Oh, Jared? He's always a bit on edge. *leans in* He was in the war, you see..." At absolute worst, it makes the rogue toss out on additional lie, but it's probably pretty easy to make the lie perfectly reasonable, and you might be able to play it for sympathy.
Oh, there are lots of rewards for a good charisma score (though I'd always welcome more). The thread was started because there aren't any penalties for a bad one.
Actually, there aren't really any rewards for a good Charisma score, not inherently. Abilities that draw their juice from Charisma (like spellcasting) don't count because they could just as easily be attached to something else.
Abilities that draw their juice from Charisma (like spellcasting) don't count because they could just as easily be attached to something else.
You're right, non-elective (like-them-or-not) mechanics for charisma are absent. That's what the thread is about. But at least the inverse isn't true; if your charisma is 18 you can pick your classes, skills and feats to take advantage of that as well as any other stat.
'S all I was saying.
|
I have used the "Cha+1/2 level for action points" variant in my last two adventures. The players really like it, but those who really wanted Cha as a dump stat did not feel overly penalized.
I've brought this up in other threads, long dead, but it makes sense that a Sorcerer can use their Charisma to force fate to deal them a good hand (action points).
Mechanically, this does nothing for core rules.
My guilty pleasure for stat dumpers has always been ghosts - anyone losing that much ability drain will be in for trouble if they dumped any stat.
I actually really dig the Action Point idea, though I really don't think it would be all that tricky to balance. Tear it straight out of Eberron and change the number you get per level to 4 + Charisma modifier (min 1) or something and you're set.
Actually, no, if Charisma is going to matter as much as the other skills, it would have to be 4 +/- Charisma modifier, penalizing poor Charisma, just like there are penalties for having poor numbers in the other stats.
|
Perhaps I missed something, but why does this need to be fixed? All stats are not created equal, and different stats have mechanically different effects. If Charisma is used as a dump stat by your players (it certainly isn't by mine) and you see that as a problem, it isn't all that hard to start highlighting its importance. Feinting, bluffing, diplomacy, paladin's divine grace ability, sorcerers, and yes ghosts are all good examples. Even the barbarian who elects to Intimidate might wish to have at least an average base score (although not necessary and Str can be substituted).
Side note; I've found I like using Intimidate in combat to demoralize. "Shaken" gives the enemies penalties against the spellcaster PCs and melee types, and it isn't limited to affecting monsters of your own HD or lower.
Having a low charisma score does not -mechanically- hinder the PC as much as having another low score. I do not see this as a problem; it's just different.
Fixing CHARISMA?
Simple thing:
Move Willpower from WISDOM to CHARISMA.
Remove physical Attractivness from CHARISMA (to a feat)
If you like, you can rename em and you'll end up with:
AWARENESS - Perception, Empathy, Intuition, Sixth Sense
and
PSYCHE - Resolve, Force of personality, Mental Endurance/Willpower
NOW; Who doesn't want those be as high as possible?
The rogue and ranger are equally 'penalized' when trying to sneak through the forest with a clanking paladin in tow.
Which you can usually get around by leaving the paladin behind, scouting ahead, and then bringing him forward a bit.
The cleric is 'penalized' by the brainless barbarian charging in all the time and sucking him dry for healing spells.
Not really. First, healing allows him to use his class abilities, which gives him the spotlight, which is the only real currency in the game anyway. Second, he isn't obligated to heal the barbarian. It's elective on his part, even if it'll piss the barbarian off.
The whole party is 'penalized' when the paladin's code of conduct makes a problem that much harder to solve.
Which is unfortunate, and is why the party should be able to veto someone choosing to play a paladin, but that's for another thread.
The druid is 'penalized' whenever the party travels terrain that his animal compagnon disagrees with, and it's the same for the paladin with his mount (even with the 3.5 solution).
This strikes me as not relevant, as it's not actually a party choice (after all, they have to go where the adventure leads them, else they wouldn't be adventurers). The situation would be the same no matter what the other players decided to do during character creation.
I can list similar penalties all day long. It's a party game: sometimes that works in your favour, sometimes it doesn't.
Sure. That doesn't mean it's ok to balance a character creation decision off the knowledge that it's going to penalize someone else in the party doing what they want to do.
Actually, no, if Charisma is going to matter as much as the other skills, it would have to be 4 +/- Charisma modifier, penalizing poor Charisma, just like there are penalties for having poor numbers in the other stats.
That's what "+ modifier" means. That's how the game notation works.
Perhaps I missed something, but why does this need to be fixed? All stats are not created equal, and different stats have mechanically different effects.
Each stat costs the same amount. It's just unfair for them to be unbalanced.
Fixing CHARISMA?
Simple thing:Move Willpower from WISDOM to CHARISMA.
Remove physical Attractivness from CHARISMA (to a feat)
This only shifts the problem to making Wisdom the dump stat (though granted, your Perception will suffer, at least).
The rogue and ranger are equally 'penalized' when trying to sneak through the forest with a clanking paladin in tow.Which you can usually get around by leaving the paladin behind, scouting ahead, and then bringing him forward a bit.
Not if you want to ambush someone, which would be using the rogue and ranger's strong points - so they are being penalized by having characters in the party that are not stealthy.
The cleric is 'penalized' by the brainless barbarian charging in all the time and sucking him dry for healing spells.Not really. First, healing allows him to use his class abilities, which gives him the spotlight, which is the only real currency in the game anyway. Second, he isn't obligated to heal the barbarian. It's elective on his part, even if it'll piss the barbarian off.
I doubt many players consider patching up other characters an opportunity to shine. ;-) That's why the cleric was so unpopular in 2E (and the healing role in general still is).
Not being obligated to heal the barbarian is a subjective issue, and if you decide not to you're actually penalizing the barbarian, whose strong points often require him to risk loads of damage.The whole party is 'penalized' when the paladin's code of conduct makes a problem that much harder to solve.Which is unfortunate, and is why the party should be able to veto someone choosing to play a paladin, but that's for another thread.
Can we then also veto the larcenous rogue, the icky necromancer, the - IMO - abhorrent save or die wizard, the other divine character whose alignment and deity directly oppose mine, the dumb-as-brick fighter who always embarrases us and the filandering bard?
The druid is 'penalized' whenever the party travels terrain that his animal compagnon disagrees with, and it's the same for the paladin with his mount (even with the 3.5 solution).This strikes me as not relevant, as it's not actually a party choice (after all, they have to go where the adventure leads them, else they wouldn't be adventurers). The situation would be the same no matter what the other players decided to do during character creation.
Not always. Sometimes your hand is forced and you have to choose the less favourable path because of an animal companion or mount.
That doesn't mean it's ok to balance a character creation decision off the knowledge that it's going to penalize someone else in the party doing what they want to do.
I think it's unavoidable that character decisions will occur that don't mesh entirely with those of others.
Archers need to invest in feats to be able to shoot in melee without penalties. Is the presence of melee characters then a hindrance that should be avoided?
Casters who want to use area of effect spells are hindered by any other PCs who are in the area of effect. This penalizes them. Conversely, those other characters are hindered by the area effects, which penalize them - so who's more entitled, the characters who want to use area of effect spells or those that want to run around in the target area?
Who gets precedence, the morally iffy rogue player or the goody two-shoes paladin player?
If someone wants to try something that might backfire, affecting the whole party, who gets final say?
Different characters in the same party don't always mesh. In fact, that's quite a common occurance. IMO, that can't and shouldn't be helped. Conflict is interesting, and the advantages of being in a party still far outweigh the disadvantages.
Perhaps I missed something, but why does this need to be fixed? All stats are not created equal ...
It's called game balanced.
It's not a requisite of play, but it is a worthy goal.
I agree with the original poster. CHA is still the dump stat. But we have not really found a solution that is not dependent on DM Style or a bad balance between 'Role' Playing and 'Roll' playing.
I think the problem is that Charisma is a role playing stat and the other really more 'physical' stats. It out grew it's 1st edition purpose as 'looks and bearing' and we are still trying to find out what to do with it. If you want to be an uncouth Paladin or a timid sorcerer the stat does not matter.
EDIT: With all the other sacred cows killed, I wish 4e had addressed this. There have been some neat ideas on how else to use it.
Alright, lets go for this concept. End Charisma as a social skill at all. We have STR, DEX, and CON as Physical Power, Speed and Endurance. Make INT, WIS and CHA the mental attributes of Power, Speed and Endurance. I am guessing that would make Charisma some sort of 'Magical Apptitude' or luck or fate (Action Points).
So then we need to make feats skill ranks that address social ability. Uncouth that gives +2 Intimidate and -2 Diplomacy. Smooth Talker gives you +3 Diplomacy. Streetwise gives you +2 to Gather Info but -2 Diplomacy. Your level might affect it also. Maybe certain classes get some sort of class ability like 'Social Grace'. Just end the social association with Charisma and make it something else.
Rambling thoughts here. This might suck.
EDIT: I don't think it would be that bad for reverse comptaibility. It is already a mish-mash or Arcane and Social. Once again, not thought through.
The stat is balanced though, just as much as any other.
In a diplomancer game no one cares much for str and con, they concentrate on being smart, wise, and charismatic.
In a more combat oriented game they do the reverse.
D&D however is meant to be a blend of the two. Characters interact both in combat and out. If the DM makes a campaign that leaves off half the equation and therefore leaves off the "interactive" stat, then that really isn't the game designers fault. They Have built good solid reasons why no character should have a dump stat. If DM's design their campaigns to not take advantage of that, then there's nothing anyone can do about it. Arbitrarily placing more importance on the stat doesn't really solve the underlying problem. If the DM wants Charisma to not be a dumpstat then he needs to balance the campaign more to make it worth having.
In campaigns where you hack and slash and ignore social interaction, the DM is asking the players to dump the social and power up the hack N slash.
-S
The DM, of course
|
Charisma is only a dumpstat though in campaigns that don't utilize it in the role of social interaction.Or for everyone in the party except the face and the sorcerer (and the sorcerer would probably rather use Int).
Yeah, each time the sorcerer and face get lucky, the rest of the party is quite content to watch the festivities from the corner of the room.
Again, the same pretty much goes for Str for most arcane casters. If the DM can impose Str-based checks for them, he can just as easily impose Cha-based checks for everyone else.
No he can't, because he has to split the party up to force everyone to make Charisma checks whereas anything involving Strength will probably be a hurdle each party member has to overcome, and everyone has to worry about encumbrance.
Again, the same pretty much goes for Str for most arcane casters. If the DM can impose Str-based checks for them, he can just as easily impose Cha-based checks for everyone else.No he can't, because he has to split the party up to force everyone to make Charisma checks whereas anything involving Strength will probably be a hurdle each party member has to overcome, and everyone has to worry about encumbrance.
Again, we've gone over this already. The DM can easily give the face character a circumstantial modifier based on the rest of the party's appearance.
The party can use the "face" fairly often, I grant you that.
But so what? When you want the door kicked down you use the guy with strength. You don't force the mage to do it even though the barbarian with 10 gazillion strength sits there goin "sorry man, you really shouldn't have chosen that for a dump stat".
Sometimes however, the stats come into play.
The wizard falls into a pit and has to climb out.
Maybe he's used his spells for the day and needs to ascend a rope.
Maybe everyone is climbing together and someone falls and he hasta make a Str check to catch them.
The situation doesn't have to be contrived, but it Should occasionally come into play that each character uses his or her stats.
Yes, the party can (and should) use the face person.
Sometimes however the figher has to speak for himself.
Imagine a very easy scenario to come across in a hero-based D&D game.
The PC's have saved Something. The princess. The crown jewels. The king. The queen. The country, the planet, the King's vineyard. Whatever.
The King/Queen/Princess/whatnot has the PC's before them, to be given their just reward. One catch: The PC's have to tell them what they want!
So while the sorc or bard or whoever waxes diplomatic and maybe even slightly flirty with the recently widowed Queenie, the Fighter and his 8 charisma sweats in his (clothes or armor as appropriate) knowing his terrible hygiene and awful stutter are gonna make him look a fool in the Queen's Court this day.
Now, will he go to the headsmen for his 8 charisma? Probably not.
Will he be invited to the ball after the ceremony? Probably not. He almost certainly won't be dining beside the Queen at any rate.
Not every stat is equally important all the time- but every stat does have it's place, and they are all balanced in a balanced campaign. Let people do what they have designed themselves to be good at, but occasionally they'll get a swift, solid kick in the teeth for dumping something they shouldn't have. That is balance.
-S
I doubt many players consider patching up other characters an opportunity to shine. ;-) That's why the cleric was so unpopular in 2E (and the healing role in general still is).
Incoming tangent...
I love patching people up. Support rolls like that are awesome. You should see me in Crystal Chronicles, I play a male blackmage with a ton of health spamming heal/resurrect/clear as the situation warrents. The rest of the party just runs in and gets killed knowing I've got their back, it's totally great.
Killing things is fun, but having the party's back has always been more my style. All other things being equal, I prefer the majority of my interactions in combat to be with the other human character rather than faceless monsters.
Yet I avoid playing clerics because it's a freaking broken class.
I droped a huge rant on this subject in the "lets have something new" thread, but to summarize, beefing up the cleric and making him more flexible (to lure people into playing this "vital class") was one of the worst mistakes made in 3e.
That the cleric was "necessary" to optimal party composition showed it was ALREADY broken. The correct response would have been to tone him down or spread his healing powers around to other classes/mechanics, and then let people who like that kind of character play one.
YOu shouldn't NEED a cleric, and in that respect, PRPG channel energy is a massive step in the wrong direction.
The cleric should just be there as an option for anyone who wants to play a cleric.
|
|
Whilst everyone is advocating using more social encounters to highlight the drawbacks of poor social skills, the fact is, even if a player does use CHA as a dump stat, the consequences can be avoided or worked around, due to the very nature of the skill system.
A Rogue with CHA 3 has -4 to CHA-based skills, true.
But he can spend a mere (4 skill points in 3.5) or one rank in PFRPG to bring his Diplomacy skill up to that of the untrained average man.
Avoiding all penalties, and 'counting as' a person with a CHA 8 points higher than he actually has.
You can't do that with any other stat. You can buy off a similar deficit in Perception, but your atrocious WIS would still affect your Will save, you can buy off a deficit in Athletics, but your poor STR would still penalise your max load, attack bonus and damage.
|
|
<took a break there>
As I was saying, I agree with the OP, that all other stats have a mechanical disadvantage associated with allocating a low score, and these disadvantages keep on hurting over the life of the PC.
They can be mitigated via feats (Iron Will, etc) but this is an expensive resource for many.
Some feats only bypass part of the problem (Lightning Reflexes improves your Reflex save, but leaves the AC penalty, Weapon Finesse improves attack bonus, while leaving the damage penalty, etc).
Unless your class abilities are powered by CHA (Sorceror spells, Cleric Turning, Paladin Divine Grace, etc) there are no penalties for low CHA, other than a reduction in certain skill bonuses. And these skills can be improved very easily; so easily that at 1st level, a rogue can cancel his penalty to any CHA-based skill by the allocation of one-eighth of his available skill ranks.
I use 'presense' instead of Charisma for all the Cha-based classes, and Charisma becomes a whole different stat - I have players roll (2d6)-2 for PA (Personal Appearance), and they get to add ALL of their Atribute bonuses to THAt for Cha. Its possible to get a REALLY high Cha that way, but you'd have to have awesome stats in all your other attributes as well. The average NPC isn't going to get the bonuses, so he (or she) has to get by 'on looks alone'.
I adapted that from another system, and I like it because it means someone who is exceptional in certain things will appear to be more attractive to people - Why would a guy with Str 18, Dex 18, and Int 18 seam 'un-appealing' to someone because of a randomly generated stat?
'Heroes' are supposed to stand-out, and the more they do, the more receptive people will be to them.
On the other hand, being able to cast more spells or play better music because you are 'charming' is utterly ridiculous. I know a few musicians who are pricks, but they can play like an angel - Charisma has NOTHING to do with their talent.
Personally, as a player, I've never favored dumping CHA. Charisma is your "style" stat. To me, it represents your characters apparent level of awesomeness, and I'm no more likely to dump that than anything else.
Me neither unless there was an RP reason to do so. The style thing makes sense. I mean you could intimidate someone by swiftly and stylishly dispatching 3 orcs in front of them. So maybe the ogre mage wants to talk now after seeing how 'cool' you are rather than fireballing you to Baator and back?
<\/\/I= Spyral Blade =I\/\/>
note : quote tags not working :(