|
Looks like several people on these boards took Charisma as a dump stat. :-p
Not that I really have a leg to stand on there.
Anyways. I suspect people will continue to dump Charisma until is has something to offer them. One thing Charisma used to do was allow the liberal use of hirelings!
In fact, that was the best way to keep a low-level wizard alive, back in the day. Give him a high charisma and hire a torchbearer (or lantern-bearer) and a couple of beefy thugs as an escort. If you make hirelings and other NPC's more important, Charisma will become more important.
Charisma also gains in importance if all the negative modifiers in the party are always applied to the party face. It's harder for the bard to make a good impression if the wizard is always picking his nose and the fighter won't stop staring vacantly off into space.
The only real "problem" I have with the OP is that.. well.. people can be stone cold gorgeous and oogle worthy.. until they open their mouth. Poor manners or conduct can make you come across *terrible* even if you are actually very attractive. We see this in our popular actresses and singers everyday.
Likewise, someone who looks like they hit every single branch of an ugly tree 400 feet tall can actually turn out to be exceedingly charismatic and likeable.
So if a PC wants to dump charisma, be physically beautiful- but RP's the part either of being silent/standoffish or of being a *****/blunt whatever, then I'm fine with that.. and the mechanical disadvantages will fill out that role. (i.e. a crappy diplomacy or whatever). If they choose to use skills/feats to shore up that ability weakness then they are expending resources.. and balance is maintained.
But telling someone "you dumped charisma, you can't write that your character is physically attractive" is not the way to go, to me. and I certainly wouldn't go inventing new house rules to prevent someone from dumping a stat. If you want them to not dump it, make the house rule 'you can't make an ability score lower than X after racial adjustments".
-S
But even by the book, charisma includes appearance. So if your CHA is 8, your appearance and other things are 8. If you up the appearance, what do you down in return to keep the average at 8? So now your appearance is 12, do you down your speaking to 4?
People just up the appearance to 14 and leave the rest at 8. That doesn't make for a CHA of 8.
To Lazzo:
(My apologies, I did not read all of the posts in the thread.. I am speaking mostly just to the first post, but I did read a handful of the ones that followed)
I have actually wrestled this as a GM myself, recently. I got somewhat fed up with the "cake and eat it too" approach to dumping Charisma. I proposed limiting how much Charisma could be lowered- an "inverse cap" if you will.
Because we are starting a new campaign and I don't want to arbitrarily hand out house rules without at least some discussion, the group and I had a heart-to-heart about this. Both sides expressed their concerns.
My final decision was not to apply a limit to what they did with Charisma, above and beyond what is actually in the rules.
What came out of the discussion is that I enjoy it when they role-play and I had previously not utilized the Charisma Skills very extensively. If they role-played it out pretty well, I took that as fairly representative of their characters and we only rolled the dice maybe a third or a quarter of the times that the situation could have dictated.
No more.
They made the case that they dumped their Charisma because it didn't help their characters very much; and the basis of that conclusion is that they didn't have to make a lot of Charisma skill checks. Without being disrespectful they said, "If the rules aren't enforced much, we don't think to put points in Charisma."
So I didn't pull a jerk-move, nor did I get pissed off. But I explained clearly, "Okay, we're starting a new campaign. *I* will brush up on Diplomacy, Handle Animal, and all the other Charisma based skills. You can sell down an attribute as much as dictated by the Core Rules. Expect that I will be asking for you to roll those Charisma skill checks, so make your characters accordingly. Your face to face role-playing will not be considered as a major determining factor in any ruling. We'll look at the dice."
And they agreed to that. It was preferable to them, rather than me telling them could not dump Charisma below a certain point.
So our tentative solution is to enforce the rules as written. I'm not actually thrilled about that because I was pretty comfortable with how I was doing it, but I took their point. Without a clear consequence meted out by the system, what reason would they have to 'waste points on Charisma'? It was not the solution I was hoping for... but.. it was the best compromise we came up with besides "my game my rules".
I don't know if it will work or not. The campaign has just started. If nothing else, I'm treating it as an interesting experiment.
It isn't "you have low charisma, so you are foogly". Your attractiveness is just a part of the overall score. Do you think that every single sorceror, oracle, and summoner is extremely "holy CRAP!" beautiful? Seriously? Of course not. Being pretty has nothing to do with spell casting.. Its force of personality.
It is a combination of things. Like a combination lock. Some of them are lower, some are higher.. but house ruling "extra penalties" to stomp on characters just isn't the way to go.
To put it another way- if you have a low charisma it can mean any one thing or any of several things.. Just like having a high charisma can. it Can mean extremely well spoken and/or very attractive or that they just seem to have that way about them.
Low Cha can mean they are physically ugly or that they burp loudly at inopportune times or scratch their privates at the Queen's audience or make lude jokes to the serving wenches, or whatever. It can just be "a way about them" that just turns people off. But telling someone "you dumped cha, so you can't be pretty" to me, isn't right. The math penalizes them without you red-penning their character to tell 'em they are doing it wrong. Just make sure the mechanical penalties are being enforced.. or that they are taking the skills (diplomacy) and/or feats to over come it.
If they choose to say 'I'm pretty but rude" then, who cares? Its the exact same thing as saying "I'm polite but uglier than a dog's arse". Its still the same charisma score, with the same exact penalties.
-S
@ watcher
This is propably a very common story. I've heard and experienced similar cases. I think making some charisma based rolls now and then is a good first step. Personally I feel that when players learn to actually enact their characters is, when roleplaying is at it's most enjoyable. Large part of roleplayers however leave the actual enactment to a lesser degree and even dislike it. Which is ofcourse equally good way. With those groups I think enforcing the balance is the most important.
But telling someone "you dumped cha, so you can't be pretty" to me, isn't right. The math penalizes them without you red-penning their character to tell 'em they are doing it wrong. Just make sure the mechanical penalties are being enforced.. or that they are taking the skills (diplomacy) and/or feats to over come it.
If they choose to say 'I'm pretty but rude" then, who cares? Its the exact same thing as saying "I'm polite but uglier than a dog's arse". Its still the same charisma score, with the same exact penalties.
But you don't roll for pretty, so no math penalizes it. Everything is not rolled for. Say someone has a huge nose. It might be a disadvantage without rolls. Someone remembers you from the bar.
The problem comes when you fluff the charisma in a way that you up things that are not rolled for. Then they become advantages higher than your charisma but everything else stays at the level of your charisma.
So by the logic of low cha good appearance verses low cha good personality.
A character could have a low wisdom but good willpower or low wisdom but be perceptive. The RAW doesn't support that so why should it support Personality vs Appearance?
Civil enough?
So by the logic of low cha good appearance verses low cha good personality.
A character could have a low wisdom but good willpower or low wisdom but be perceptive. The RAW doesn't support that so why should it support Personality vs Appearance?
Civil enough?
Yes. Exactly. Rules don't support separating different aspects of charisma. The penalty/bonus is the same for everything that charisma encompasses. So if you have -2 to charisma, you have -2 to looks. If you arbitrarily up some aspect, you have received an unbalanced advantage. (unless you then lower something, but thats in the house rule territory)
-edit-
awww crap. 6h to sleep before work. Guess I'll swing by tomorrow. :-p
But even by the book, charisma includes appearance. So if your CHA is 8, your appearance and other things are 8. If you up the appearance, what do you down in return to keep the average at 8? So now your appearance is 12, do you down your speaking to 4?
People just up the appearance to 14 and leave the rest at 8. That doesn't make for a CHA of 8.
Just something to think about:
The dragons have high Cha.
So do Demons and Devils.
As do hags.
In fact many ugly creatures have high charisma scores.
That doesn't mean they aren't ugly, just as a low charisma score doesn't absolutely mean that a creature is hideous.
On the same front a character could look great -- but have absolutely no people skills and a complete lack of desire to develop any.
I would suggest Azula (from the Avatar: Last Airbender show) as a character like this. She is not a people person. She does understand and predict them (wisdom and int) but she doesn't really get relationships. She has developed the ability to talk to people intimidate them, fool them and to get what she wants from them without violence or trickery -- but these are skills: Intimidation, Bluff, and Diplomacy that she has developed -- she also uses the physical situation to augment her checks whenever she can.
Now she isn't ugly -- but after about a minute of her presence you know she isn't the type of person you want to be around (or have around).
Charisma is about multiple things -- appearance is one of those things, but it isn't the only one, or even a major one if the monsters are to be any indication.
****
The rules do allow for someone to have a low wisdom but still be perceptive -- they also allow for someone to be a complete jerk but still be attractive.
These things are not solely based on the stat -- instead there are feats, skills, and traits that can help one be better at the specific aspect that they are supposed to be good at -- while leaving the rest to rot.
This does take investment -- but then so does the higher stat.
For example you can't tell me that a half elf rogue (wisdom 7) with skill focus(perception), alertness, and sharp senses isn't perceptive. Even at level 3 they will have +13 on their perception check (+15 on traps) -- now would the rogue be more perceptive with a higher wisdom? Of course -- but that doesn't mean that the rogue isn't perpective already.
A character with a low charisma might have the charming trait, and skill focus(diplomacy) as well as the silver tongue feat (if it's still around -- I'm not looking to see). They would be much more of a smooth talker for it. They've also burned a trait and two feats as well as the skill points in diplomacy. This doesn't mean they'll intimidate you (maybe they're too nice in general), but any good at dancing, and be poor at lying -- but they'll probably be able to find a date.
Azula has a good charisma. You don't want to stand next to her because she a crazy evil b&!$*.
Ok one more quick thing. Same monsters always have the same CHA so thats an approximation. A CHA 20 dragon might be attractive to other dragons while a cha 12 one might not. A human would not find a dragon attractive but could still majestic or beautiful. You could say a horse or car is beautiful.
Azula has a good charisma. You don't want to stand next to her because she a crazy evil b~~*%.
Sure of course she does.
That's why she didn't have a problem getting a boyfriend.
And why she understands how to maintain a relationship, or make friends, or do anything that involves charisma without forcing people through outside circumstances to do her bidding.
Everytime someone obeys her it is not because she asked them too -- it's because she has arraigned the situation to make not doing what she says to be deadly to you.
That's not charisma -- simply good planning.
Ok one more quick thing. Same monsters always have the same CHA so thats an approximation. A CHA 20 dragon might be attractive to other dragons while a cha 12 one might not. A human would not find a dragon attractive but could still majestic or beautiful. You could say a horse or car is beautiful.
Doesn't hold -- after all the discriptions for these monsters say they are ugly -- and they tend to find the humanoid "norm" for attractiveness to be the same as their own -- as such we have succubus, trumpet archons, bralani, lillend, and everything else to use the same norm.
Consider the Thrawn in the back of the Kingmaker AP too.
Charisma =/= Attractiveness
Attractiveness can == charisma.
Demon, Devils and Dragons are creatures of Majesty and Power. All posessing great personal force and awe inspiring appearance [not pretty or ugly]. Awe inspiring, fear effects spell-like abilities. High Charisma, Appearance and Force of Personality are both represented.
Define ugly. Unattractive? Mr. Fishy likes fish he thinks they are beautiful. You might think horses or dogs or butterflies are beautiful. Some one else could hate slimy fish, smelly horses[goblins], barking dogs[goblins], or hate bugs, eww butterflies.
Appearance is more subjective that Charisma.
Sure of course she does.That's why she didn't have a problem getting a boyfriend.
And why she understands how to maintain a relationship, or make friends, or do anything that involves charisma without forcing people through outside circumstances to do her bidding.
Social inept is a roleplaying note not a stat. Remember Cha can be high but the character is inept socially, or charisma is low but appearance can be high, that blade has two edges.
Demon, Devils and Dragons are creatures of Majesty and Power. All posessing great personal force and awe inspiring appearance [not pretty or ugly]. Awe inspiring, fear effects spell-like abilities. High Charisma, Appearance and Force of Personality are both represented.
Define ugly. Unattractive? Mr. Fishy likes fish he thinks they are beautiful. You might think horses or dogs or butterflies are beautiful. Some one else could hate slimy fish, smelly horses[goblins], barking dogs[goblins], or hate bugs, eww butterflies.
Appearance is more subjective that Charisma.
And thus the argument that appearance is somehow predicated on charisma just left the window.
SO a charisma 7 character could *indeed* be attractive.
If those creatures can be ugly -- unattractive -- physically not beautiful with high charismas then a low charisma character can be attractive, physically beautiful, without any problems.
We done here then?
Haven't you folks ever seen a teenybopper "chic flick?" It doesn't matter that our high-school heroine is physically attractive - she wears dated clothes and a boring hair style, is socially inept and clumsy, gets shy around the hotties and is basically ignored (at best) by her peers. Over the course of the movie, she'll "learn new tricks" and "become self confident" (pick up some charisma skills and focus feats) and learn to "like herself" and "be herself." (Charisma gain for new level!)
Charisma is not about looks, it's about making your looks (and everything else) WORK FOR YOU. If you've got low cha, you simply don't have the self-confidence in your own beauty to get a positive reaction from a guard - in fact, you've probably got your eyes downcast and have a terrible twitch, and any attempt to add a "sway in your step" will meet with disaster, barring a roll (modified by your low cha) that suggests he finds your ineptitude pitiable. I'd say she's as much within her rights to call the character "pretty" as you are to adjust CHA rolls according to her CHA score.
If you're really bothered, invent a trait for physical beauty that gives her an occasional bonus in some specific situations. And Mr. Fishy, the characters you're talking about have Iron Will and Altertness, obviously ;-)
also as a final note, not everything that charisma does, falls under some skill or class ability.
I think the problem here, and the reason that charisma is being undervalued is that this statement is false. Charisma, alone of all the skills, IS completely supplanted by skills for characters who don't use it as a class ability (thats most of them)
From the book:
You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to:
• Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate,
Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
-where a poor charismia is quickly rendered moot by the sheer number of ranks in a skill.
• Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
-This is specifically what diplomacy is for.
Check: You can change the initial attitudes of nonplayer characters with a successful check
• Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting
to harm undead foes.
-The amount of damage is pretty insignificant, so clerics who dump Cha (i'm looking at YOU dwarves)are only loosing uses per day.. easily made up for by a feat.
No other stat can be completely made up for with skillpoints or a feat the way diplomacy can. Every other stat affects far more things that are more valuable and much harder to improve. Its simply the way the game is. The question is why is this a problem? Its dungeons and dragons, not Lawyers and lawfirms.
Social inept is a roleplaying note not a stat. Remember Cha can be high but the character is inept socially, or charisma is low but appearance can be high, that blade has two edges.
Sure of course she does.That's why she didn't have a problem getting a boyfriend.
And why she understands how to maintain a relationship, or make friends, or do anything that involves charisma without forcing people through outside circumstances to do her bidding.
I see it as roleplaying her stats.
I see it as roleplaying her stats.
So she has a low Charisma because she is a controlling lunatic. Or she's a high charisma because she can relate to people? That seems like a flaw not a stat.
So Your point is what exactly? Charisma by RAW or Charisma as the player sees fit.
I see it as roleplaying her stats.So she has a low Charisma because she is a controlling lunatic. Or she's a high charisma because she can relate to people? That seems like a flaw not a stat.
So Your point is what exactly? Charisma by RAW or Charisma as the player sees fit.
Relating to people isn't a charisma skill -- but maintaining relationships is.
Sense Motive is Wisdom -- diplomacy is charisma... understanding people is wisdom (or intelligence in some ways) while getting they to do what you want through your own ability to persuade them (as opposed to forcing them to do what you want) is charisma.
If you are forcing them to do what you want (this is what azula does -- even with her "friends") and can't simply ask them then you have poor communication skills.
My point was that charisma is far too nebulus to "force" someone into any one part of what it represents just because "that's their stats".
Basically put would you say someone with high charisma can't be ugly?
Then why say someone with low charisma can't be pretty?
What I'm saying is the rules allow you to be low charisma and still be fine at skills (diplomacy) or look attractive -- just has you can have low wisdom and be perceptive, low intelligence and be cunning, or low wisdom and still have an Iron Will.
Basically put -- let the game balance do what it already does and don't abritrarily decide that "this is what's going to happen because you have a low stat."
Charisma -- mechanically -- should do what RAW says it does -- a penalty or bonus to specific mechanical points.
Fluff wise however (such as specific appearance) should be left more to the player since -- mechanically -- it doesn't matter.
Here's an example: A Kraken has a CHA of 21. That is because it is an awe-striking figure, not because it is beautiful. It is horrific in appearance but majestic in scope and presence.
Relating to people isn't a charisma skill -- but maintaining relationships is.
Mantaining a relationship requires empathy [wisdom] and a willingness to consider and meet another persons expections [aligment].
A cruel and selfish person would have a hard time in a relationship because they are selfish and cruel. They could rule through fear but that's not the same.
My point was that charisma is far too nebulus to "force" someone into any one part of what it represents just because "that's their stats".
Mr. Fishy's point was a 7 str is weak. A 7 int or wis is stupid or dull. But a 7 charisma can run the board. It's should be all stats are read the same or not if you what a low charisma/high apprearance fine make a new stat or give the same advantage to the other stats.
Con becomes stamina and health. Stamina is used for endurance and health for Hp and fort saves. If the number are the same nothing changes but raise one over the other...
|
Remove appearance from Charisma. Simply do not associate physical beauty with a stat. If someone says they're character is attractive, but has a low Charisma score, let them. In a game there should be numerous opportunities to demonstrate the drawback of a low Charisma score.
My group has never associated appearance with Charisma. If you really need a measure of physical beauty, try adding the Comeliness abilty from older versions of D&D. Really, physical appearance should not dominate the discussion of problems associated with low Charisma.
Mr. Fishy's point was a 7 str is weak. A 7 int or wis is stupid or dull. But a 7 charisma can run the board. It's should be all stats are read the same or not if you what a low charisma/high apprearance fine make a new stat or give the same advantage to the other stats.
Con becomes stamina and health. Stamina is used for endurance and health for Hp and fort saves. If the number are the same nothing changes but raise one over the other...
But they can be seperated to a degree -- just like charisma can be.
After all taking toughness and applying your favored class bonus to HP will help adjust for a low Con.
Taking Great Fortitude would help with fortitude saves (toughing it out) while if you want endurance but not health you could take the endurance feat.
Now there isn't skills for Con of course but to be fair I can't think of many things that would be skills that would Con driven (concentration could be pulled back out but that has it's own problems).
Low strength can be compensated for too -- however it is usually done through magical items as there isn't a "weight lifting" skill (which honestly might not be a bad idead) or "applied strength" skill (for using what you have in an intelligent fashion -- though this usually requires intelligence so it would be an... odd skill to develop I think).
I'm of the opinion that all the stats represent multiple things in different ways --
Wisdom is perceptiveness, empathy, intuition, and will.
Intelligence is book learning, the ability to solve problems, understanding of the laws of the world, logic skills, and ability to learn.
Dexterity is reflexes, hand/eye coordination, speed, ability to move, and agility.
Consitution is health (general over all as measured in part by HP), endurance, and resistance to disease/drugs/poisons/etc (bonus to fortitude saves).
Strength is force, power, lifting ability, and general physical shape to an extent.
Charisma is force of personality, ability to influence others, pose, and self expression.
In my opinion all six stats should play into the physical beauty of a character. After all someone that doesn't know how to take care of themselves or lacks the will to do so won't look (or smell) as good as someone who does -- will having a good strength and ability to move smoothly as well as good health are all things that to some degree determine how a person looks.
@Abraham spalding
Agreed, but you can't fake the other stats with skills.
That's the problem with charisma a player dumps charisma but doesn't want to accept the stat is low they want throw skills on it and pretend they didn't dump it. If you dump any other stat the stat is low across the board.
@Abraham spalding
Agreed, but you can't fake the other stats with skills.
That's the problem with charisma a player dumps charisma but doesn't want to accept the stat is low they want throw skills on it and pretend they didn't dump it. If you dump any other stat the stat is low across the board.
Again it isn't low across the board -- it can be "fixed".
Strength is the easiest stat to boost for example.
Skills from Int can be gotten with items, or favored class bonuses.
Extra Hp, Fort bonuses, endurance can all be easily had.
Bonuses to Wisdom skills, abilities, save throws can all be over come in the same way that Charisma can be overcome.
Dexterity is the second easiest stat to boost and again with the over coming issues with skills/ AC/ Initiative/ everything else.
All the stats can be overcome in game with feats, items, traits, spells, and class features -- all of them -- this isn't something limited to Charisma only, it's an across the board thing:
In fact I would point out that it makes pathfinder (and 3.5) a very optimistic game since you can overcome your poor starting position with training -- instead of just being stuck with being a loser all your life (not calling anyone a loser -- just pointing out that it is possible to start with low stats and overcome it in the pathfinder game -- not something that necessarily happens in life too often).
And honestly teaching someone to behave in company and "win friends and influence people" is possible -- learning to behave in public and to be diplomatic/intimidating/expressive is possible -- both in the real world and in the game world.
|
Sure of course she does.
That's why she didn't have a problem getting a boyfriend.
And why she understands how to maintain a relationship, or make friends, or do anything that involves charisma without forcing people through outside circumstances to do her bidding.
Everytime someone obeys her it is not because she asked them too -- it's because she has arraigned the situation to make not doing what she says to be deadly to you.
That's not charisma -- simply good planning.
She's a wizard then.
She's a wizard then.
Probably an elemental fist or something of the like. Possibly a Magus with several alternate class features (dump the armor and weapons for Int to AC and unarmed strike trade the spell list for a fully fire themed one, slightly different class skills due to being royalty).
The main thing is everytime she makes what would be a charisma check without having the means to coherce obediance she fails the check. She needs regular advice on how to deal with people "normally" (see the beach episode when Ty Lee has to give her advice on "being liked").
Every "successful" charisma based check she makes is due to the fact that the only result of disobediance is swift (if slowly carried out) terrible vengance by Azula (or those under her).
Even her "friends" only go with her at first because she either makes them or to get away from a worse situation (from their point of view).
|
@Abraham spalding
Agreed, but you can't fake the other stats with skills.
That's the problem with charisma a player dumps charisma but doesn't want to accept the stat is low they want throw skills on it and pretend they didn't dump it. If you dump any other stat the stat is low across the board.
I think you just really want to see a player punished for dumping charisma. It doesn't seem to matter to you if a player invests skill points, feats, etc. into improving their CHA-related skills after, you don't want someone with an 8 in charisma to succeed diplomatically.
A dwarf who never took a bath in his lifetime will have a low charisma score, but that's not because he's ugly... :P
Azula's got EVERYTHING stacked into intimidation. She constantly puts the fear of death into everyone if they don't do what she says. Outside of her looks, that's the only CHA ability she has.
Like Uncle Iro said, "She's crazy, she needs to be taken down."
Although, she would be good at bluffing as well. Just ask Toph. ;)
(Excellent series, btw. If any of you haven't seen it, it's definitely worth it.)
Okay, I'm done. Saw the Avatar talk and couldn't resist.
But I will say I tend to dump CHA myself but my wife continues to harp on me about it, so I'm trying to tone it down. She keeps calling my pc's "Oh look, it's 'Hitty McDumpstat'".
"Why I oughta.... one of these days, Alice!" *shakes fist*
|
Directed at the OP
One might philosophize all day about the repercussions to having a low charisma score. There are infinite situations in which circumstance bonuses might be added.
Ultimately, If you have a character who has a low charisma it is the players job first to play the character correctly. As the GM you might reward them with occasional circumstance bonuses if you feel it fair and beneficial (but please don't get carried away).
If the player chooses to not role play the character in a sufficient manner repeatedly and blatantly, in my opinion, it is then your job as the GM to create a situation in which the character is seen as delusional or incorrect or some event occurs that will reverse the charismatic role playing. It's up to you to get creative at this point and make the reverse either a joke for the whole group or possibly life threatening to the character.
Neither do I, and a low CHA carries with it a negative modifier. Just make sure that gets factored in and the game takes care of itself. At low levels, the character has a hard time, despite skill ranks. At mid-levels, things get it easier (but still not lobbying for the Party Face position.) At higher levels, the low-stat is pretty well covered up for. And what's wrong with that?
So despite the skill ranks, your position is to arbitrarily ensure the character has a hard time.
Thats terrible DM Fiat and you know it, don't backpedal.
You give DM's a bad name.
I think you just really want to see a player punished for dumping charisma. It doesn't seem to matter to you if a player invests skill points, feats, etc. into improving their CHA-related skills after, you don't want someone with an 8 in charisma to succeed diplomatically.
To fix any other stat that might be dumped it will require at least a feat and possibly some magic items. Yet dump CHA and you can basically fix it with 2 skill ranks in Diplomacy.
So yeah, some balance is probably needed here.
|
|
I have a player in my current PF game who is playing a female dwarf monk with 5 Charisma. As soon as the player told me this, my immediate response is "So, let's quantify this... how's about uncontrolable flatulence, breath like a bucket of rotting fish, and a voice like a strangled frog?"
He was all for it, and the uncontrolable flatulence sometimes interrupts when his character is present when the prettier characters are speaking for the party, and most NPCs call his character "thing". And since this female dwarf is built mostly around grappling, it has made for some extremely compromising and hilarious situations.
I know for most martial characters, Charisma is a dumb stat, but at least it's a fun stat to dump RP-wise.
Last weekend during NeonCon I was playing PFS, and at one of the tables a player was running a paladin with 7 Intelligence who was always talking about what his momma would say when things happened and blurt out the most inane stuff when asked questions or put to task, that was great as well.
Personally I don't play any characters with any single stat lower than 8, and as the game progresses I more often than not end up working on getting rid of the negative, because I understand a starting character is going to have some rough patches but as my PCs get more experienced and world-wise I want them to be as well-rounded as possible... that's just my preference.
I haven't had a chance to run my game in a while, so looking forward to the game this weekend to see what the Dwarf Of Eternal Stench is going to do this time. She's always complaining in public about the state of her "underbeard".
Create a Social Saving throw, based upon force of personality. Basically charm effects would no longer target Will, but Personality.
I was actually just thinking about this the other day...
The problem is that Charisma doesn't really do much. Like, think about it, about people punishing others for having low charisma. Do we ever see someone specifically create DM fiat to "punish" players with low strength or low constitution? No, of course not. Because having low strength has consequences already, and having high strength gives awesome bonuses for anyone who fights.
But charisma just...doesn't do much. It effects the main abilities of bards, sorcerers, and paladins, and sort of effects turning a little bit but not enough to REALLY matter. Unlike dexterity, there are no side bonuses for charisma. Even if you don't fight, dexterity still controls your initiative and your reflex save. Constituion is your hit points, the most important thing there is. Fighters don't drop wisdom because of will saves. Intellect gives you skill points. Strength is carrying weight and pretty much any type of melee and most missile attacks.
But charisma? Charisma is - and only is - a small number of skills, but every stat already has that.
The key isn't to create DM fiat to punish characters with low charisma. They're doing what the game builds them to do. No, the key is to make charisma worthwhile in the first place.
Also, physical beauty isn't a stat, and wanting it to be such is the most embaressingly neckbeardy things imaginable. Players can describe their player looking however they want, come on now.
|
|
Also, physical beauty isn't a stat, and wanting it to be such is the most embaressingly neckbeardy things imaginable. Players can describe their player looking however they want, come on now.
+1
I've had a DM ask us to roll 3d6 for comeliness once. Then he spent a half hour lecturing us about which of us was most attractive, and why, and what it meant for social situations. And my girlfriend who wanted to play a pretty elf rolled a 3.
The key isn't to create DM fiat to punish characters with low charisma. They're doing what the game builds them to do. No, the key is to make charisma worthwhile in the first place.
Which comes down to game style; I can't see any real capacity for CHA in a dungeon crawl, and if a lot of campaigns (anecdotally) just run dungeons all day then its pretty moot.
In more RP/Social heavy campaigns it is called into play a fair bit.
I prefer (thus) to see more well rounded characters who can fit into both.
And my girlfriend who wanted to play a pretty elf rolled a 3.
Champagne comedy moment?
|
|
The key isn't to create DM fiat to punish characters with low charisma. They're doing what the game builds them to do. No, the key is to make charisma worthwhile in the first place.
Oh no, I was just joking with the player when I said that but he jumped on it, he liked the idea and ran with it. There's another player playing a male elf conjurer with a Charisma of 7, no such thing there except he roleplays as abrasive and skulky and he and the dwarf avoid most social interaction outside of the party as they often fail their Diplomacy skill checks (and other skill checks as needed but that's the one that comes up the most, and they haven't put any ranks into that skill nor have they taken any steps to raise their Charisma up).
I let them play what they want to, and fail where they want to. There have been some instances where a fairly high Diplomacy or Intimidate check is needed in order to acheive a major story reward, and luckily they've got a Charismatic paladin and a Charismatic barbarian in their party both with max ranks in those respective skills, so things usually work out (unless one of those player's can't make it, then it's "OK, who has the best Diplomacy score right now? Me? I have +2. Really? OK, can you guys assist please?").
None of my suggestions or decisions have been a punishment to any player for any character choice, only for fun and flavor. The dice still fall where they may.
Thank you all for the back and forth. :)
I once had a friend that stood by the opinion that CHA *IS* Physical Attractiveness. We disagreed and debated it in both anectdote and application.
As many others have pointed out, CHA does very little (as in, nothing) for many *classes* in *dungeon crawls*. That is to say if you are not a Bard, a Cleric, a Paladin, or a Sorcerer you have no need to take CHA at all, ever. In fact, CHA should not be a stat, but a way to gain +4 Build Points for your Point-Buys.
That's fine. For some players and GMs. We had two players that consistently played one or two dump stats at 7. One had an Alchemist INT20, WIS/CHA 7. His brother had a Bow-fighter with INT7/CHA7. Their plan? Do nothing in game until the hard-core dungeon delving/monster bashing was gunna begin; we could have stabled them with the horses! Seriously: Their plan was to eat snack chips and not particiapte at all until the maps, minis and dice came out. He and his brother did this multiple times. Once upon a time R.Talsorian named this technique the "G.I.Dunno Maker" Max out combat skills and dump no resources into 'social' or 'interactive' skills.
Again, that's fine. For some. To me both as a player and a GM I find it to be insulting. When that kind of player is across the table from me (player to player) they are showing me that they are willing to take full benefits for less work. As a GM, it is showing me that world interaction is meaningless and I have wasted my time thinking about who lives in this little village the party is defending (or whatever the PCs are doing this week).
I have an Elf Eldritch Knight, CHA 10. She is pretty, in an otherworldly way; but her attitude is very direct. She is very formal, the other PCs describe her as having a stick up her butt.(lol) So, that describes the whole of her average CHA. After a situation where she needed to Intimidate some caravan drivers she realized she was weak in that skill, so she put a bit of effort into it. As it's a class skill and she had no penalty, she is now +4 to Intimidate: it's a case where a little investment by the PC delivered a significant effect.
I rolled up a Dwarf Barb/Druid with a CHA5. He is savage, unwashed and eats what he kills. He is neither pretty nor ugly but so uncouth that people are immediately turned off by his mere presence! Some players would ask for (or demand depending on the player!) a BONUS to Intimidate based on their PC's despicable and vile manner. I think that is what the issue is. I *dumped* his CHA. There are some drawbacks to doing that. I should not receive, nor expect to receive, some benefit not due.
A friend has a CHA8 Monk. She stutters. It takes her so long to get things out that the people she is talking to jump to conclusions, and try to finish her sentences. Now, if that doesn't lead to misunderstandings, then nothing will :) Should her stutter affect how she Dances? Maybe... does she dance perfectly until she has an audience? ;)
I like the idea (discussed earlier) of simply letting the Game do the Work. Don't under or over use the CHA--let it be what it is.
Oh, and let the PCs be as pretty or ugly as they like...
GNOME
Reading posts above, couple of more things that come in to mind.
Generally, no gm will let a character move faster than her speed by fluffing her a fast runner. Nor lift more than her strength by fluffing her doing weight lifting all her youth. Why would a GM allow a character to look better than her charisma due fluff? It doesn't mean she can't look any way she wants. There is no particular beard, chin, nose, boobs, limb proportions or anything that can be said specifically to be beautiful or ugly. No restriction on what a character looks. Only weather others quantify it handsome or ugly.
About the inter species charisma. The notion is so far out there that we have no real world parallel to draw upon. A pretty toad might be pretty to another toad, rarely to a human. But we can't ask the toad. Which does a toad find more esthetically pleasing, a cow or a human? Looking 'good' can only apply within species, or in closely similar species. Whe know many animals have mating rituals or territorial behaviour towards eachother by visual means. I don't think this has any bearing on the issue at hand.
Everyone agrees that charisma is a weak stat. Why would we want to take even more power from it? Charisma does not equal diplomacy. Diplomacy is something you get to use in specific circumstances. Charisma is something you carry along all the time. If we let the warrior of CHA 7 riding in to town catch eyes the same as his friend the warrior with a CHA of 14, we are unfair to the second guy and strip charisma of even more game effect, driving it to a mandatory dump stat to anyone, not having a class ability keyed to it.
People generally don't roll for visual impression I believe. When a guy walks in to a bar and people turn to look, what do they think? "I hope he doesn't try to sit at my table." Or "Well what a nice looking chap". Why would the player get to decide that arbitrarily despite her character's stats? Should you perhaps roll for what they think? Say it's a CHA 7 guy fluffed to be handsome with a stutter. What modifier would you apply to the roll? Lets say they end up thinking that guy looks unpleasant. Now he approaches a table, will they happily give her a seat or say "sorry, table's full"? Then if you apply diplomacy to talk them in to letting sit down, you might get a seat. However others in the other tbles still think you're propably unpleasant company.
Stats affect your character even without rolls. Low CON dies faster, low STR carries less... Just because CHA doesn't have a table doesn't mean it has no impact without a roll.
This game is designed around how and where ability modifers get partitioned out. If Charisma doesn't have a personal mechanical benefit for a player, it is not going to get points in it. Especially in point-buy where each point takes away from a finite pool of points for abilities. You want high-charisma? Just give everyone except for Cha-based classes a free 12 Charisma. That is the only way it is going to happen in such a rule-based game. What is a Fighter going to do with Charisma? What will a Wizard do with Strength?
You want people to use Charisma? OK. Make the same change as in 4e: Wisdom and Charisma are interchangeable for stuff like Saving Throws. Dex and Int are interchangeable for saving throws and Initiative. Strength and Con are interchangeable for saving throws and whatever else.
|
|
The way charisma is used in pathfinder and the mechanics behind it, appearance would need to be a 7th stat to be used the way it is being discussed. The presence and force of personality is too strong a part of it to have a minor thing such as appearance lumped in. The appearance stat would not fit in with the point buy system though, because that is just too easy for adding yet another dump stat. In the MERP system, it was a straight roll modified by the Presence(Charisma) stat modifier. With that kind of extra stat, the appearance stat could have a circumstance modifier to certain situational rolls but not effect things involving things it shouldn't(like Use Magic Device).
This whole discussion is the same as looking at the dexterity stat as Dexterity vs Agility. Someone could have excellent manual dexterity and disarm any trap, but have terrible balance. There has to be some generalization so the system does not get bogged down. If charisma gets split like folks are saying, all the stats could go that way too. A fighter could have high strength in his legs and back and carry a lot, but had dinky little arms and not hit hard
says a lot of jerky stuff
Neither do I, and a low CHA carries with it a negative modifier. Just make sure that gets factored in and the game takes care of itself. At low levels, the character has a hard time, despite skill ranks. At mid-levels, things get it easier (but still not lobbying for the Party Face position.) At higher levels, the low-stat is pretty well covered up for. And what's wrong with that?
Learn to read, kiddo.
The game takes care of these things all by itself, no special DM hate is required.
After reading this thread from top to bottom, it is plain that CHA simply does not command the same amount of respect as the other Attributes. I guess there's a reason it is last on the list.
As for making it relevant, you'd have to tie it to something more than just skills and a few select Class Abilities.
|
|
Why does everyone have problems with 7 Cha, but few have issues with the 7 strength sorcerer? Like, it's mechanically a bad stat; unlike EVERY other stat, it has nothing dervived from it except skills. And since diplomacy, not CHA, determines how likeable you are; people feel free to dump it and "be satisfied".
I look at CHA either as my primary casting stat or a dump stat; only for Palls and fighting Bards/Oracles would I have an "average" CHA.