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.
I've never MADE a 7 STR anything...
"Can you be a friend and hold my stuff for me? I'm too weak to carry anything..."
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.
I've never MADE a 7 STR anything...
"Can you be a friend and hold my stuff for me? I'm too weak to carry anything..."
Right, I'm thinking that if you compared all 6 stats to each other, in terms of what they do mechanically, you'll find that CHA really is the weakest link.
Right, I'm thinking that if you compared all 6 stats to each other, in terms of what they do mechanically, you'll find that CHA really is the weakest link.
It depends. The only universally essential stats are Wis and Con (to protect you from instant death, and in the case of Con, less-than-instant death). Everything else is somewhat negotiable.
|
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.
I've never MADE a 7 STR anything...
"Can you be a friend and hold my stuff for me? I'm too weak to carry anything..."
I made an aged gnome beguiler with 7 strength, once. She was hilarious. Obviously she avoided combat with all her tricksy spells, and was pretty good at talking herself out of trouble. Once our party was flanked, and my gnome and the non-combatic cleric were staring down an enemy while the combat people dealt with the lion's share of the problem. My character cast hold person or something similar...and then attempted to coup de grace the helpless enemy with her long spear.
...1d6-2 (3 because it's two handed? Eh, can't remember) damage. Well, it took three rounds, but eventually he failed his fort save!
She was a hilarious character to play, calling the other adventurers "sonny" and ordering them around as if she was their grandmother. :)
Right, I'm thinking that if you compared all 6 stats to each other, in terms of what they do mechanically, you'll find that CHA really is the weakest link.It depends. The only universally essential stats are Wis and Con (to protect you from instant death, and in the case of Con, less-than-instant death). Everything else is somewhat negotiable.
If you are not a Charisma caster or don't have a class ability that requires Charisma, you NEVER need Charisma. It isn't linked to any in-game mechanical workings and any relation to skill can be fixed by taking Int and putting points in those skills.
It also depends on how role-play intensive your DM is. Sure, if he is a hack and slash, CHA is going to be a dump stat for you (unless you are a charisma based caster).
But with our DM, he does a good job in balancing combat and role-play (which is one of the reasons I really enjoy playing under him) and our charisma comes into play a lot when we roleplay and interact with others.
Besides, a dump stat for me is not a 7 as I don't like to take negatives in any of my stats as in our campaigns, our DM is going to present situations where it will impact your character negatively many times. So a dump stat for me would just be leaving it at 10. I know that may not what is defined as a 'dump stat' here on the boards, but that is far as I would be willing to 'dump' any of my stats.
Well, one exception to that. I would lower one of my stats down that far if I was building a specific character concept that was based off that low stat. Like playing an Ogre, someone who was injured in an accident and was maimed, etc. But other than that, I would not lower any of my stats into the negatives.
Actually I have a good reason to dump CHA. Your less likely to be kidnaped by a Dragon :P. Although on the flipside you're likely the first to be staked out as human sacrifice if others have the option.
We do experiments all the time about what other critters find attractive. Mostly when trying to get Zoo animals to mate. I wish I had a few articles to post but I recall some zoologists using taped videos gauge some simian tastes. Bow chicka bow wow. What we don't normally do is examin how other creatures rate our attractiveness to them... although I cam think of some jokes that involve dogs and legs. :P
The Book of Erotic Fantasy is still available through various PDF sellers and has an Appearance stat for those really pressing for mechanics, and includes interspecies impacts... so I hear ~.~; .
===
Jokes aside I agree that good way to judge to construct a character's basic appearance is to consider all 6 stats. With STR, DEX, CON, and a bit of CHA mixing for outward physical appearance. INT, WIS, and CHA describing behavior and carriage. While a player is free to describe their character, part of playing a game that defines such stats and classes. Much like alignment is a guide to characters general personality but not the final.
Okay say a character has fairly well balanced physical stats above average. Strong, nimble, and healthy, but a low (7) charisma. This suggests that something is slightly off in some way. I had a figher almost like this and decided to describe his musculature as more serpentine or coiled. His intelligence was slightly above average decent but wisdom was just average. Combined with being Chaotic Evil I gave him some disturbing speaking habits, drawn out S sounds, and a manic method of shaving people with a razor. Although as a quirk to his personality he consider blades to important to kill with them, you only shave and groom with cutting instruments. He only killed with maces or spikes/spears.
Frankly I don't see what the big ta-do is all about. So players are dumping charisma, they've been dumping that stat since they were allowed to place stat rolls where they wished. At least now it does power social interaction skills and various class abilities, and actual does give some kinds of characters a reason to focus on it.
I also remember back to 2e Skills and Powers with sub-stats, where Charisma was split 50/50 Appearance and Leadership. My combat focused players used to further dump the Appearance sub-stat.
Charisma used to determine how many hirelings and companions one could have. I think charisma would become much more powerful if any class in the world could take a companion (similar to an animal companion or eidolon) and the power of that companion was based off of charisma and hit dice only.
It does impact the Leadership feat. With a CHA of 7 any cohort you try to get will be about 4 levels lower the you starting out. That's a big gulf to cover in survivability, and could lead to that cohort getting killed (and a further -1).
There's no calls for insults to reading comprehension, assuming that other posters are younger than you are, or assuming that age somehow equals wisdom. That idea went out of fashion once saber tooth tigers were no longer eating the dumb and stupid, meaning anyone with some gray in their beard was smart enough to stay alive. Its not the years, its the mileage.
The DM hate WOULD be necessary to make charisma relevant. Responding to characters based off of their charisma rather than their diplomacy roll would be going outside of the rules, and it would be going outside of the rules to rectify a problem: that charisma is fixable with a few skills points, which are the most available resource at a players disposal, while other stats are only fixable with feats, magic items etc.
That would appear rather vindictive to punish the players for noticing charisma did nothing and played the game accordingly.
I don't think there's anything wrong with there being a dump stat. Sometimes you need one to be effective, either because the dice gods were bi polar and gave you high and low scores, of because you're on point buy and every point in charisma is an opportunity cost that goes better elsewhere.
Strength: Dump stat for wizards, sorcerers, and some druid builds. Everyone else either needs to hit something , not take a penalty on ranged attack damage,
Dex: Dump stat for .... no one really. Its a good place to put a 10 for clanky fighters+ pally's, most clerics, but no one wants their primary defense lowered with a negative
Con: Dump stat for.. NO ONE. You will be hit. You will take damage. you will make fort saves. Its not everyone's favorite stat though either. its pretty rare that anyone puts their highest stat here but almost everyone puts their second highest stat here
Int: secondary Dump stat for... charisma based characters (bards paladins,sorcerers) fighters, barbarians, bards, paladins. Most classes who dump this can't dump this too far because their classes don't get a lot of skillpoints, or have good class skills that should take advantage of a lot of skills.
wis: Adds to your will save, which is the weak point for most fighter types. Oddly is now a semi dump stat for paladins. Only a semi dump stat for the occasional wizard or sorcerer(who makes it up with a good will save)
Chr: Dump stat for: Barbarians, Clerics, Druids,Fighters,Rangers,Rouges wizards... anything these classes looses in CHA (diplomacy handle animal) can be made up for with skill points or at worst a feat.
So, most stats are dump stats for someone. Its just that charisma is the dump stat for most people. I think it also goes a little further: since charisma is the weakest stat, a class that's reliant on it is a little weaker than a class relying on another stat (its the reason i prefer wizards over sorcerers)
It also depends on how role-play intensive your DM is. Sure, if he is a hack and slash, CHA is going to be a dump stat for you (unless you are a charisma based caster).
But with our DM, he does a good job in balancing combat and role-play (which is one of the reasons I really enjoy playing under him) and our charisma comes into play a lot when we roleplay and interact with others.
Except you don't use Charisma to interact with others; you use skills. Skills can be enhanced using Intelligence. Significantly more than you can by no dumping Charisma. If taking a -7 to Charisma lets you get a +1 modifier in Intelligence, you only need two levels to match your low Charisma and any more levels than that and you have exceeded any benefit your Charisma score was giving you.
|
I don't personally mind if a player wants to say his character is handsome even thogh his Charisma is 7, and I may even roleplay the reactions of NPCs differently to take that into account, e.g. barmaids may sit on his lap rather than another character etc.
However, in return I would expect the player to roleplay one of two other aspects of Charisma to be even worse than "below average", so I would want to see that player narrate how his character moves around nervously, mumbles to himself getting his words right just before approaching an NPC, how he moves aside for others rather than force them move aside for him, how he quickly looks away if a woman stares at him.
I would also indicate that neither of these - his handsomeness or his worse personal magentism / ability to lead etc - would provide any mechanical bonus - his Charisma is still 7 and that means a -2 penalty on Cha related skills and an easier DC for any uses of Diplomacy on him.
However, I sometimes think it would be better to not have appearance be a factor of Charisma and instead everyone is considered average looking. If you want to be more attractive perhaps the charactder would need to take a Trait that provides a +2 bonus to social skill tests where look matter. And if you really want to be stunning, maybe its a feat rather than a trait and it gives you +5 bonus. You could also possibly have flaws that indicate someone as being particularly ugly.
Basically, handle it like the James Bond RPG did :) Charisma as a Stat and Appearance as a trait.
Now, on a slightly different note I personally don't like the idea of a player dumping charisma and then putting a couple of ranks in Diplomacy and ceasing to roleplay all of the negative charisma aspects.
Diplomacy covers only one aspect of Charisma, if the player had chosen to explain his low charisma as being introverted, then the character is still introverted, but he has learnt some skills in debating and persuasion and can summon up the courage to talk to people when needed, but generally still doesn't like to.
So a character with Charisma 7 and 4 ranks in Diplomacy has an overall +2 modifier, the same as a Charisma 14 character with no ranks. But I would expect the players of those two characters to roleplay out the same overall modifier in different ways.
The former could be nervous and awkward, but be able to quote poetry and create a good compliment unique to the situation, whereas the latter would be naturally confident but perhaps a little crude in their seduction attempts, using cliched compliments.
Diplomacy =/= Charisma, just as BAB = / Strength even though they both increase your chances to attack.
A High BAB low Strength fighter shoudl be described as using deft strikes, skillful footwork, but with little power behind the blows, whilst a high strength low BAB character could be described as clumsy and simple in their attacks, but sheer strength making the blows land true.
And a low Charisma character... takes penalties to various Charisma skills. Which can be supplemented by Intelligence. As a PC, you have no real penalties to a low Charisma without it being shoe-horned by the GM.
And a low Charisma character... takes penalties to various Charisma skills. Which can be supplemented by Intelligence. As a PC, you have no real penalties to a low Charisma without it being shoe-horned by the GM.
It's that shoe-horning that I object to so much.
Except you don't use Charisma to interact with others; you use skills. Skills can be enhanced using Intelligence. Significantly more than you can by no dumping Charisma. If taking a -7 to Charisma lets you get a +1 modifier in Intelligence, you only need two levels to match your low Charisma and any more levels than that and you have exceeded any benefit your Charisma score was giving you.It also depends on how role-play intensive your DM is. Sure, if he is a hack and slash, CHA is going to be a dump stat for you (unless you are a charisma based caster).
But with our DM, he does a good job in balancing combat and role-play (which is one of the reasons I really enjoy playing under him) and our charisma comes into play a lot when we roleplay and interact with others.
Yeah, but if I am going to dump my charisma to a 7, I am not going to bump up my Int just so I can have extra skill points to make up for the negative modifier in my charisma-based skills. What's the point? I may as well just put my charisma at 10 and call it a day.
Besides, our DM does look at our final Cha score when interacting with others. He has given extra modifiers for very low, as well as very high charismas. They are not big modifiers, maybe a +1/-1 or so, but they are there. It also depends on the roleplay situation, as well.
Yeah, but if I am going to dump my charisma to a 7, I am not going to bump up my Int just so I can have extra skill points to make up for the negative modifier in my charisma-based skills. What's the point? I may as well just put my charisma at 10 and call it a day.
I was thinking about this too. In the end, you're right, you are using a high INT to cover for the low CHA. The reason it's a good trade-off is because the high INT offers more versatility. You don't always have spend those extra points on CHA-based skills, but your INT-based skills always benefit from your high INT modifier.
And a low Charisma character... takes penalties to various Charisma skills. Which can be supplemented by Intelligence. As a PC, you have no real penalties to a low Charisma without it being shoe-horned by the GM.
Only partially. It takes at least two skill ranks to cover each minus of charisma (at least bluff and diplomacy). It takes more if you try to cover the penalty to disguise(making you appearce meet social expectations) and perform (need I say Dance or Sing). So that's anywhere form 2 to 4 skill Ranks required per minus to cover the short fall.
Very few players will pay that and short change thier other skills.
|
Yeah, but if I am going to dump my charisma to a 7, I am not going to bump up my Int just so I can have extra skill points to make up for the negative modifier in my charisma-based skills. What's the point? I may as well just put my charisma at 10 and call it a day.I was thinking about this too. In the end, you're right, you are using a high INT to cover for the low CHA. The reason it's a good trade-off is because the high INT offers more versatility. You don't always have spend those extra points on CHA-based skills, but your INT-based skills always benefit from your high INT modifier.
Not only that, but Combat Expertise and all of its relevant maneuver feats all require 13 INT. Going to 7 CHA means I can get to 14 INT much easier, not only making up for low charisma with skill points, but having access to feats like Greater Trip and Gang Up.
Only partially. It takes at least two skill ranks to cover each minus of charisma (at least bluff and diplomacy). It takes more if you tray to cover the penalty to disguise(making you appearce meet social expectations) and perform (need I say Dance or Sing). So that's anywhere form 2 to 4 skill Ranks required per minus to cover the short fall.
Very few players will pay that and short change thier other skills.
Personally if I had a low charisma, I wouldn't be trying to cover disguise or perform. Magic can imitate a disguise skill adequately, and perform is not necessary for most characters. Likewise, I would probably choose, in at least the early levels, between improving my intimidate score or that of my diplomacy. Bluff may be important, but I could just as much play up the fact that my character is an awful lier.
Not only that, but Combat Expertise and all of its relevant maneuver feats all require 13 INT. Going to 7 CHA means I can get to 14 INT much easier, not only making up for low charisma with skill points, but having access to feats like Greater Trip and Gang Up.
Excellent point, Mergy. With some Feats requiring a Fighter to support a 13+ INT, the CHA dump (and fix) makes even more sense.
I was thinking about this too. In the end, you're right, you are using a high INT to cover for the low CHA. The reason it's a good trade-off is because the high INT offers more versatility. You don't always have spend those extra points on CHA-based skills, but your INT-based skills always benefit from your high INT modifier.
Yes, that is true. It does give you more versatility. I never complain about a higher Int. :)
But then those times you don’t bump up your (negative) charisma based skills, they are lower than they should be due to your negative Cha. And it’s a tradeoff that isn’t worth it (to me).
I've always liked a more balanced character. Where their class based stats are higher than the others, but you aren't so focused that your non-class based stats are dump stats. Too much of a sacrifice for me.
Not only that, but Combat Expertise and all of its relevant maneuver feats all require 13 INT. Going to 7 CHA means I can get to 14 INT much easier, not only making up for low charisma with skill points, but having access to feats like Greater Trip and Gang Up.Excellent point, Mergy. With some Feats requiring a Fighter to support a 13+ INT, the CHA dump (and fix) makes even more sense.
Oh, I certainly see both of your points. I do like having a bonus modifer INT with almost all classes I play.
With my Sorcerer, I actually have a 14 INT and my 'dump' stat is my WILL at a 10. My class based stat (CHA) is at 16.
|
|
Strength: Dump stat for wizards, sorcerers, and some druid builds. Everyone else either needs to hit something , not take a penalty on ranged attack damage,
Dex: Dump stat for .... no one really. Its a good place to put a 10 for clanky fighters+ pally's, most clerics, but no one wants their primary defense lowered with a negative
Con: Dump stat for.. NO ONE. You will be hit. You will take damage. you will make fort saves. Its not everyone's favorite stat though either. its pretty rare that anyone puts their highest stat here but almost everyone puts their second highest stat here
Int: secondary Dump stat for... charisma based characters (bards paladins,sorcerers) fighters, barbarians, bards, paladins. Most classes who dump this can't dump this too far because their classes don't get a lot of skillpoints, or have good class skills that should take advantage of a lot of skills.
wis: Adds to your will save, which is the weak point for most fighter types. Oddly is now a semi dump stat for paladins. Only a semi dump stat for the occasional wizard or sorcerer(who makes it up with a good will save)
Chr: Dump stat for: Barbarians, Clerics, Druids,Fighters,Rangers,Rouges wizards... anything these classes looses in CHA (diplomacy handle animal) can be made up for with skill points or at worst a feat.
STR: I've had a 4 STR Old Halfling Cleric. Kept all his gear on a mule. Mule had a ladder so he could get up to it and ride. He wore a robe, and a holy symbol. He had something like 20 Wis, 18 Cha. Decent Int. I think his Dex was 7. He discovered early on that touch and ranged touch spells were definitely not his forte.
DEX: Aforementioned Cleric.
CON: I've done dwarfs or gnomes who take it as an 8, bumped to a 10. Usually for "I'm back here behind the rest of the party..." types.
INT: My current PFS character, a Human Cleric 6 (necromancer) dumped this at 7. He gets 3 skill points per level. (1 for minimum skills/lvl, 1 for being human, and 1 for favored class.) He has a 22 Cha but only a 16 Wis. (Animal Domain - runs a Large Gorilla wielding a Lucerne Hammer). Any undead he encounters totally become his b$!!$. (Command Undead DC 22 Will save. [6 CHA + 2 Improved Channel + 3 (half level) + 1 Sacred Conduit]
WIS: I don't play many fighters, but this would be a possible dump-stat. I've seen really low WIS paladins in a few games I've been in (as their saves are great anyway.)
CHA: I have a Dwarf Drunken Master who dumped this at 5 (7-2). If I play a Cleric, this is one of the stats I definitely do NOT dump. Channel Energy, Diplomacy. Sometimes I'll take the Dangerously Curious trait and then I get to Use Magic Device. (aforementioned Necromancer didn't take Dangerously Curious, but at 6th level is +13 to UMD. I can use any wand or staff on a roll of 7. That's without taking max ranks in the skill.)
It really depends what you want out of a character. ANY stat can get dumped, depending on the character, and how you want to role play it. I've had 22 CHA half-orcs, and have a 5 CHA Dwarf. I've had 22 Int Wizards, and 7 Int clerics. I've had 20 STR Monk, and 4 Str Cleric.
Except you don't use Charisma to interact with others; you use skills. Skills can be enhanced using Intelligence. Significantly more than you can by no dumping Charisma. If taking a -7 to Charisma lets you get a +1 modifier in Intelligence, you only need two levels to match your low Charisma and any more levels than that and you have exceeded any benefit your Charisma score was giving you.It also depends on how role-play intensive your DM is. Sure, if he is a hack and slash, CHA is going to be a dump stat for you (unless you are a charisma based caster).
But with our DM, he does a good job in balancing combat and role-play (which is one of the reasons I really enjoy playing under him) and our charisma comes into play a lot when we roleplay and interact with others.
Yeah, but if I am going to dump my charisma to a 7, I am not going to bump up my Int just so I can have extra skill points to make up for the negative modifier in my charisma-based skills. What's the point? I may as well just put my charisma at 10 and call it a day.
Besides, our DM does look at our final Cha score when interacting with others. He has given extra modifiers for very low, as well as very high charismas. They are not big modifiers, maybe a +1/-1 or so, but they are there. It also depends on the roleplay situation, as well.
Yeah well I try not to play with jerkass DMs.
I always explained it thusly to new players:
Looks matter. Think of Britney Spears, etc. Teen idols and movie stars benefit from their attractiveness.
Other people aren't so good-looking, perhaps, but are still persuasive and charming; Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan had a lot of charisma.
Steven Hawking doesn't look sexy sitting in a wheelchair, but people care very much about what he has to say. His intelligence is obvious, but he has a way of delivering what he says with a self-effacing charm that warms people up to him. He has charisma, if not sex appeal.
We fanboys go nuts over "nerdy" girls who aren't smokin' hot, but charm us with their quirkiness. When I was young, I was fairly good-looking, but had 0 confidence around girls. I got older and learned that confidence was what really got women interested, and then I did better with the ladies (added some skill points, I guess).
Charismatic people dress for success and have the gift of gab. They present themselves as being worth talking to (interesting, charming, trustworthy), and able to get results (persuasive, convincing, a natural leader).
Whether or not they acually are is another question, but they create that impression.
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...
Someone who looks nice but is crude, unhygenic, or says offensive things is going to have a low Charisma and people aren't going to like them. They might get a second look, until someone sees them scratching their junk or picking their nose, or farting loudly and blaming someone else, etc. Charisma isn't necessarily about looks, it's about force of personality. For example, Winston Churchill. He was short, fat, and looked like a shaved bulldog. Was CHA his dump stat? Hell no -he had intense charisma that let him be a tough leader during a time of crisis.
How about Cyrano de Bergerac? He had a huge nose, and yet he had the wit and force of personality to charm a beautiful woman (by proxy). On the other hand was the proxy, Christian. He was extremely good looking, but could barely talk to Roxane and needed his friend's charm to make progress with her. Cyrano was not found to be unattractive by many who knew him - but because he thought he was, he never made the effort to win Roxane's heart for himself.
You can have a low CHA character who is physically good looking, because their body language, behavior, and personality make up for it. They slouch. They leer. They stare at women's bosoms. They may not even realize they're doing it, but basically they come off as a creep.
Yeah well I try not to play with jerkass DMs.
Oh good for you, making judgement on someone you don't even know. He's actually a great DM and a good friend of mine. So why don't you just shut up now.
These are guidelines for getting mechanical benefit, not carved in stone
for every character concept.
STR: I've had a 4 STR Old Halfling Cleric. Kept all his gear on a mule. Mule had a ladder so he could get up to it and ride. He wore a robe, and a holy symbol. He had something like 20 Wis, 18 Cha. Decent Int. I think his Dex was 7. He discovered early on that touch and ranged touch spells were definitely not his forte.
and no armor. A low AC is usually considered less than optimal on a cleric.
WIS: I don't play many fighters, but this would be a possible dump-stat. I've seen really low WIS paladins in a few games I've been in (as their saves are great anyway.)
huh. Just noticed pally's don't need wis for spells anymore.
CHA: I have a Dwarf Drunken Master who dumped this at 5 (7-2). If I play a Cleric, this is one of the stats I definitely do NOT dump. Channel Energy, Diplomacy. Sometimes I'll take the Dangerously Curious trait and then I get to Use Magic Device. (aforementioned Necromancer didn't take Dangerously Curious, but at 6th level is +13 to UMD. I can use any wand or staff on a roll of 7. That's without taking max ranks in the skill.)
channel energy can be compensated for (and then some) with a feat.
|
|
Oh good for you, making judgement on someone you don't even know. He's actually a great DM and a good friend of mine. So why don't you just shut up now.
Yeah well I try not to play with jerkass DMs.
What he probably meant was that he prefers not to have house rules that unfairly penalize people who dump charisma. Dumping charisma has a penalty, and I also think that it needs no magnification, given the number of skill points needed to completely off-set it.
What he probably meant was that he prefers not to have house rules that unfairly penalize people who dump charisma. Dumping charisma has a penalty, and I also think that it needs no magnification, given the number of skill points needed to completely off-set it.
Oh, I know that is what he meant. However, he could have come across a better way in posting it than effectively calling my DM a “jerkass”.
But I’ll just refrain from participating in this thread from now on.
What he probably meant was that he prefers not to have house rules that unfairly penalize people who dump charisma. Dumping charisma has a penalty, and I also think that it needs no magnification, given the number of skill points needed to completely off-set it.Oh good for you, making judgement on someone you don't even know. He's actually a great DM and a good friend of mine. So why don't you just shut up now.
Yeah well I try not to play with jerkass DMs.
What I meant was I don't like arbitrary house rules designed to doubly penalize the player. Such as "Oh, that Full Plate looks heavy. You get -2 penalty to Reflex saves." Or "Oh, you have really low Charisma. You must be really ugly/socially inept. You can't do X, Y, Z for no bloody reason at all."
What I meant was I don't like arbitrary house rules designed to doubly penalize the player. Such as "Oh, that Full Plate looks heavy. You get -2 penalty to Reflex saves."
Right - because, you know, the AC Penalty just isn't enough. :)
|
|
These are guidelines for getting mechanical benefit, not carved in stone
for every character concept.
STR: I've had a 4 STR Old Halfling Cleric. Kept all his gear on a mule. Mule had a ladder so he could get up to it and ride. He wore a robe, and a holy symbol. He had something like 20 Wis, 18 Cha. Decent Int. I think his Dex was 7. He discovered early on that touch and ranged touch spells were definitely not his forte.
and no armor. A low AC is usually considered less than optimal on a cleric.
WIS: I don't play many fighters, but this would be a possible dump-stat. I've seen really low WIS paladins in a few games I've been in (as their saves are great anyway.)huh. Just noticed pally's don't need wis for spells anymore.
CHA: I have a Dwarf Drunken Master who dumped this at 5 (7-2). If I play a Cleric, this is one of the stats I definitely do NOT dump. Channel Energy, Diplomacy. Sometimes I'll take the Dangerously Curious trait and then I get to Use Magic Device. (aforementioned Necromancer didn't take Dangerously Curious, but at 6th level is +13 to UMD. I can use any wand or staff on a roll of 7. That's without taking max ranks in the skill.)
channel energy can be compensated for (and then some) with a feat.
I seem to recall the 4 Str cleric wearing a mithral shirt. And I definitely remember him as being under medium/heavy load all of the time. He was old, and slow. In combat he did great healing. In role play, he was incredible fun. (Rise of the Runelords - Adopted the Pixies Kitten girls and negotiated a monthly rate so that he never had to leave. His first comment to one of the girls was "I really admire the way you display your breasts." And he took profession(Counselor) in order to help them work through their daddy issues.)
I think it's really fun sometimes in a campaign to come up with a character that you know might not be very effective in a fight, but will more than make up for it in all the non-combat role playing. (Of course, sometimes I like to make characters who just love to bash zap or kill. Variety is the spice of life...)
Like others have said, charisma is of low utility outside of skills for most characters. Further skills are an area where skill ranks rapidly outpace natural talent. As such there is limited reason to go with a high charisma when extra skill points can accomplish the same goal with less of a cost to your active character abilities.
If NPCs could diplomance PCs it might be more of an issue because charisma helps increase social "defense" but for the most part people don't really like skill based mind control.
Another alternative is to incorporate a first impression roll as sort of a passive ability check. Characters with a high Charisma tend to light up the room as they come in. The dour dwarf might actually be the better negotiator but NPCs will tend to gravitate to high charisma PCs naturally. Low Charisma PCs will have to use their active social skills (bluff, diplomacy, intimidate) in order to achieve their social aims.
Personally I never liked 3.x leadership and pretty much allow the recruitment of cohorts and followers in a more freeform manner. Characters with a high degree of charisma have greater success attracting cohorts and followers to their banner. They also tend to inspire more loyalty from their cohorts (a throwback to 1e-2e) whereas non-charismatic PCs need to spend more time stroking the egos of their NPC cohorts or in effect bribing them ;)
In a more mature game that has romance subplots the charismatic characters are often the first choice of NPC with romantic inclinations. You might be able to bluff an NPC into a dalliance but the charismatic bard with a 18 charisma is going to have better luck than the dour dwarf with the 8 charisma.
Charisma used to determine how many hirelings and companions one could have. I think charisma would become much more powerful if any class in the world could take a companion (similar to an animal companion or eidolon) and the power of that companion was based off of charisma and hit dice only.It does impact the Leadership feat. With a CHA of 7 any cohort you try to get will be about 4 levels lower the you starting out. That's a big gulf to cover in survivability, and could lead to that cohort getting killed (and a further -1).
Yes, the low CHA player will have a hard time with the Leadership Feat. This brings up a neat sub-question.
Is the Leadership Feat allowed in your game? I'm curious to see WHO says yes and WHO says no.
Note: I have no issues with Leadership whatsoever.
Is the Leadership Feat allowed in your game? I'm curious to see WHO says yes and WHO says no.
Note: I have no issues with Leadership whatsoever.
Personally I've never really used the leadership feat in my games. I prefer a more naturalistic approach to cohort recruitment than "I'm sixth level and I just took leadership, I want a dedicated buffer/healer/diplomancer". Further because leadership is so tied to level it tends to erode the PCs and NPCs use the same ruleset design of 3.x. If low level NPC rulers can recruit followers and cohorts I don't see why PCs shouldn't be able to.
I also like it from the perspective that cohorts are removed from being an adjunct to the PC. If they have to pay for the cohort out of their resource pool I can understand a desire for greater autonomy over the NPC's actions. If however cohorts are recruited via long interactions with NPCs then the player is less proprietary about them because they don't own them. This means that in actual play cohorts resemble the 1e henchmen (partial share of treasure, potential of betraying the party if mistreated, independent) rather than semi-autonomous methods of bypassing the limits of the action economy.
The game takes care of these things all by itself, no special DM hate is required.
No Ioaaba, you clearly added the word despite which just signals that no matter what, you'd be making sure that player has a hard time even if he had 100 ranks in a skill.
You got caught out, stop trying to backpedal.
I think we're done here - you give GM's a bad name.
To put it another way, here is what stats do completely outside of class abilities AND outside of skills.
Strength: Hit and damage on melee attacks and touch attacks, damage on most ranged attacks, ability to carry things
Dexterity: Hit on ranged attacks, initiative, reflex
Constitution: Health, fort saves, health, and health.
Intelligence: Languages known at start, number of skill points, multiple melee feat requirements
Wisdom: Will saves
Charisma: ~none~
Also important to note, will and fort are the two most important saves, which makes constitution even more important, and helps shore up Wisdom which seems to be losing a bit of ground.
This here is the problem. Absolutely bereft of class abilities, charisma literally does nothing (all stats have skills, after all). Even the most arcane wizard is punished for low strength due to touch attacks and carrying weight. Everyone is punished by low constitution, dexterity, and wisdom, due to initiative, health and saves. Anyone who wants to contribute outside of combat needs intelligence. Charisma...?
Personally I've never really used the leadership feat in my games. I prefer a more naturalistic approach to cohort recruitment than "I'm sixth level and I just took leadership, I want a dedicated buffer/healer/diplomancer".
I get where you're coming from, in terms of a Cohort showing up out of nowhere and perfectly fitting some narrow PC need. I think this is exactly where the DM steps in and plans how and when to introduce a Cohort.
I also like it from the perspective that cohorts are removed from being an adjunct to the PC. If they have to pay for the cohort out of their resource pool I can understand a desire for greater autonomy over the NPC's actions.
I have no problem with Cohorts being tied to Feat resources and level. They're a huge boon to the player, they need to cost something in terms if character resources.
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?
8 Wis and Iron Will. 8 Wis and ranks or Skill Focus in Perception.
RAW certainly does support it.
|
|
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?
8 Wis and Iron Will. 8 Wis and ranks or Skill Focus in Perception.
RAW certainly does support it.
I like to use 6th level as a comparison level.
8 Wis = -16 Ranks in a Class Skill = +9
Masterwork Perception Tool = +2 (50 gp)
Skill Focus Perception = +3
Cracked Incandescent Blue Sphere Ioun Stone = +1 (200 gp)
So for the cost of one feat, and 250gp, you can end up perceiving at +14 by level 6.
Contrast with a High Wisdom non-class skill perceptor
18 Wis = +4
3 Ranks in Non class skill (I rarely fully invest in non-class skills) = +3
Masterwork Perception Tool = +2
Cracked Ioun Stone = +1
So we're at +10. Skill focus gets to +13. Fully investing surpasses the low wisdom perceptor, but not by much (+16 versus +14)
Yeah, you can certainly pull off perception with low wis.
Personally, if it was a class skill, and I was low wis, I'd do everything except the feat.
(-1 +9 +2 +1 = +11)
|
|
Leadership? Totally fine with it. But PC's in my games don't need to take a feat to have good relationships with NPC's. PC's with decent charisma scores who roleplay their cards well can have cheap hirelings at first level, if they want. These hirelings can grow to become cohorts if the players like them, but I don't require a feat expenditure for it. They meet a host of NPC's, many of whom can be mentors, trainers, allies, helpers, villains... I run an NPC-rich environment.
When I'm the DM, here's what Leadership gets you:
1 - You can always expect to have a cohort. Even if you offend your current cohort and they leave in a huff, or they die tragically, you can expect to get a new one who's about the same level reasonably quickly. Without the feat, I make people actually hunt for good NPC's and it becomes a side quest. Having a cohort (or something similar) is not a guarantee for anybody who doesn't have leadership.
2 - You get followers. No matter how passive your recruitment methods, you will have the number of followers listed for your leadership score, at the minimum. You may have more, but you're guaranteed a minimum. If they all die horribly, your leadership score might go down, but you can expect to get more followers soon. Non-leadership folks have to work for their followers.
3 - If you're the only Leadership PC in the group, NPC's will naturally act as though you're the party leader.
4 - NPC's are more likely to go along with your ideas.
The Leadership feat is, in my opinion, a good way for a player to simulate a character who is better at leading and talking to people than the player is. Or at least, it's one of several tools in that toolbox.
|
|
Leadership? Totally fine with it. But PC's in my games don't need to take a feat to have good relationships with NPC's. PC's with decent charisma scores who roleplay their cards well can have cheap hirelings at first level, if they want. These hirelings can grow to become cohorts if the players like them, but I don't require a feat expenditure for it. They meet a host of NPC's, many of whom can be mentors, trainers, allies, helpers, villains... I run an NPC-rich environment.
When I'm the DM, here's what Leadership gets you:
1 - You can always expect to have a cohort. Even if you offend your current cohort and they leave in a huff, or they die tragically, you can expect to get a new one who's about the same level reasonably quickly. Without the feat, I make people actually hunt for good NPC's and it becomes a side quest. Having a cohort (or something similar) is not a guarantee for anybody who doesn't have leadership.2 - You get followers. No matter how passive your recruitment methods, you will have the number of followers listed for your leadership score, at the minimum. You may have more, but you're guaranteed a minimum. If they all die horribly, your leadership score might go down, but you can expect to get more followers soon. Non-leadership folks have to work for their followers.
3 - If you're the only Leadership PC in the group, NPC's will naturally act as though you're the party leader.
4 - NPC's are more likely to go along with your ideas.
The Leadership feat is, in my opinion, a good way for a player to simulate a character who is better at leading and talking to people than the player is. Or at least, it's one of several tools in that toolbox.
Heroes of Battle had great leadership options. Not just Improved Cohort, but options that would get you additional respect by town elders/generals etc.
This might work well in your campaigns.
|
|
Heroes of Battle, you say? I'll have to look into that. Sounds good.
I once played a character that took the Dread Commando prestige class from it. One of the features of the class is that for each level you take, your whole party (or everyone within x feet of you) get a bonus to initiative equal to your level. That seemed awesome to me.
|
|
Heroes of Battle, you say? I'll have to look into that. Sounds good.I once played a character that took the Dread Commando prestige class from it. One of the features of the class is that for each level you take, your whole party (or everyone within x feet of you) get a bonus to initiative equal to your level. That seemed awesome to me.
If it matters - Written by David Noonan, Will McDermott, Stephen Schubert
Don't confuse it with the Dreck that was Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords.
Heroes of Battle, you say? I'll have to look into that. Sounds good.I once played a character that took the Dread Commando prestige class from it. One of the features of the class is that for each level you take, your whole party (or everyone within x feet of you) get a bonus to initiative equal to your level. That seemed awesome to me.
If it matters - Written by David Noonan, Will McDermott, Stephen Schubert
Don't confuse it with the Dreck that was Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords.
please don't bash the book of 9 swords, i saw it as an excellent concept, twas just carried out poorly. i beleive it could have been a lot better if more time and effort were devoted to it's development. a lot of thier underpurchased standalone niche splats were like that.
|
|
please don't bash the book of 9 swords, i saw it as an excellent concept, twas just carried out poorly. i beleive it could have been a lot better if more time and effort were devoted to it's development, much like weapons of legacy, magic of incarnum, psionics, and tome of magic.Heroes of Battle, you say? I'll have to look into that. Sounds good.I once played a character that took the Dread Commando prestige class from it. One of the features of the class is that for each level you take, your whole party (or everyone within x feet of you) get a bonus to initiative equal to your level. That seemed awesome to me.
If it matters - Written by David Noonan, Will McDermott, Stephen Schubert
Don't confuse it with the Dreck that was Tome of Battle: Book of Nine Swords.
I read this as "I believe it could have been a lot better if wotc were interested in making a quality product at the time." As it turned out, they were working on 4th edition (or Star Wars Saga) (or something else), and each of these books was a "Oh, is it (name a month), time to publish."
I spent money on ToB, MoI, CP, ToM. For that $120, I'm entitled to complain at least some.
I think I'm mostly done now.
Dreck. Dreck. Dreck.
Yeah, pretty much done.
For now. <g>
I like to use 6th level as a comparison level.
8 Wis = -1
6 Ranks in a Class Skill = +9
Masterwork Perception Tool = +2 (50 gp)
Skill Focus Perception = +3
Cracked Incandescent Blue Sphere Ioun Stone = +1 (200 gp)So for the cost of one feat, and 250gp, you can end up perceiving at +14 by level 6.
Contrast with a High Wisdom class skill perceptor
18 Wis = +4
6 Ranks in Class skill (equal) = +6
Masterwork Perception Tool = +2
skill focus= +3
Cracked Ioun Stone = +1So we're at +16. Skill focus gets to +19. Fully investing surpasses the low wisdom perceptor, but not by much (+19 versus +14)
Yeah, you can certainly pull off perception with low wis. For the cost of one feat, and 250gp and 6 ranks you can end up perceiving at +14 by level 6.
Mr. Fishy fixed that for ya'
Your math has hair.
Ranks are 3 non class to 6 class thats a 6 point difference. All things egual rank to rank 6 class/ 6 class the sorce is
Cha 8 for the cost of one feat, and 250gp and skill points you can end up perceiving at +14 by level
Cha 18 we're at +16. Skill focus gets to +19.
Fully investing surpasses the low wisdom perceptor, but not by much (+19 versus +14)
Yeah no difference.
1st level cha 8 [1 skill point class, skill focus] +6
1st level cha 18 [1 skill point class, skill focus] +11
So dump a stat and pour resourses into it often or just to make a point. Mr. Fishy didn't say that a low stat was the ruination of a character.
He stated that there is a difference. Also he stated the a high stat character is at an advantage in the use of said stat.
|
|
I like to use 6th level as a comparison level.
8 Wis = -1
6 Ranks in a Class Skill = +9
Masterwork Perception Tool = +2 (50 gp)
Skill Focus Perception = +3
Cracked Incandescent Blue Sphere Ioun Stone = +1 (200 gp)So for the cost of one feat, and 250gp, you can end up perceiving at +14 by level 6.
Contrast with a High Wisdom class skill perceptor
18 Wis = +4
6 Ranks in Class skill (equal) = +6
Masterwork Perception Tool = +2
skill focus= +3
Cracked Ioun Stone = +1So we're at +16. Skill focus gets to +19. Fully investing surpasses the low wisdom perceptor, but not by much (+19 versus +14)
Yeah, you can certainly pull off perception with low wis. For the cost of one feat, and 250gp and 6 ranks you can end up perceiving at +14 by level 6.
Mr. Fishy fixed that for ya'
Your math has hair.
Ranks are 3 non class to 6 class thats a 6 point difference. All things egual rank to rank 6 class/ 6 class the sorce is
Cha 8 for the cost of one feat, and 250gp and skill points you can end up perceiving at +14 by level
Cha 18 we're at +16. Skill focus gets to +19.
Fully investing surpasses the low wisdom perceptor, but not by much (+19 versus +14)
Yeah no difference.
1st level cha 8 [1 skill point class, skill focus] +6
1st level cha 18 [1 skill point class, skill focus] +11So dump a stat and pour resourses into it often or just to make a point. Mr. Fishy didn't say that a low stat was the ruination of a character.
He stated that there is a difference. Also he stated the a high stat character is at an advantage in the use of said stat.
It was my intention to compare the ability of a Low Stat In-Class Perceptor with that of a High Stat Non-Class perceptor.
My apologies if I did not make that clear.
I will fully agree that there is a 5 point difference between -1 and +4.
However, +14 to perception for a low wisdom perceptor at the cost of one feat and 250gp is quite respectable.
I just wanted to jump in and say that Dwarfs do not have any more difficulty talking to dwarfs than humans do to other humans or gnomes do to other gnomes. It just happens a gnome talks to a human better and a human talks to a dwarf better, and the gnome talks to the dwarf much better.
Why?
Because the DC for a Diplomacy is X + Charisma modifier, so an indifferent human's DC is 15 (assuming a +0 modifier), while an indifferent dwarf is DC 14, and an indifferent gnome is DC 16. Thus creatures with racial penalties to charisma have no problems leading people of their own race, but a gnome might be more compelling than your average human or dwarf and it shows.
Just wanted to toss that out there.