Arrrrrr... Me mudder say I got me an charisma, despite me eyepatch, and the flies ... but alas, I can'ts seems to gets me a crew for me voyage to that illusive beast of the sea, Mr Fishy, WHO STOLES my XP, and me leg! Perhasp if I had me a popper set o' teeth and didn't eat so many pickled herring ....
at least I gots me 18 charisma ...
arrrrr....
Tome of Battle is awesome, haters gonna hate.
Tome of Battle is awesome, haters gonna hate.
i love tome of battle despite the lack of effort put into it and the swordsage is my favorite base class. i beleive a little more effort and time put into design and development could have made it even better. it's arguably my favorite 3.5 edition splatbook. Incarnum and Psionics make close seconds.
However, +14 to perception for a low wisdom perceptor at the cost of one feat and 250gp is quite respectable.
No arguement that a +14 at 6th level is decent. But would you invest that many resourses to cover a low stat or keep the stat modifer positive.
So, Cpt. McStabbie so we meet again...>bubble< taste like XP and leg. Go to the Mr. Fishy Fan Club that bowl is filled with Fishy hunters.
However, +14 to perception for a low wisdom perceptor at the cost of one feat and 250gp is quite respectable.No arguement that a +14 at 6th level is decent. But would you invest that many resourses to cover a low stat or keep the stat modifer positive.
So, Cpt. McStabbie so we meet again...>bubble< taste like XP and leg. Go to the Mr. Fishy Fan Club that bowl is filled with Fishy hunters.
DEVIL FISH, i'll not be falling for ye clever TRAPS! or CLUBS! or TRAPS with CLUBS in dem! Arrrrr ... I'll bide me time untils me 18 charisma gets me a crew from a winter laden New england town, and set my sights for you on de BRINY sea ....
Arrr... dat be enough thread jackin' fer now ....
arrrrr .... it might take while ...
|
However, +14 to perception for a low wisdom perceptor at the cost of one feat and 250gp is quite respectable.No arguement that a +14 at 6th level is decent. But would you invest that many resourses to cover a low stat or keep the stat modifer positive.
So, Cpt. McStabbie so we meet again...>bubble< taste like XP and leg. Go to the Mr. Fishy Fan Club that bowl is filled with Fishy hunters.
It's all about resource management. Stat increases are expensive. Increasing your wisdom to an 18 is a no brainer if it's much more important than you other stats - but there's a huge opportunity cost in investing in it so heavily. But if your use for wisdom is your will save and your perception score, and no spellcasting is involved, the cost of raising your wisdom that high for FOUR SKILL POINTS worth of perception ability is just poor use of resources.
If I want a keen eyed rogue able to spot detail, and I dump wisdom, hoping Iron Will and a friendly cleric with protection from evil and slippery mind will keep me out of too much trouble on the will save front, it's perfectly reasonable for me to create such a keen eyed character with an investment in feats, traits and items that buff my character's abilities to perceive danger.
And I surely wouldn't tell a player that dumped wisdom down to a 7 that they're not allowed to play a character with a decent sense of intuition ("I have a bad feeling about this, guys..." "No! That's intuition! YOu can't say that because intuition is part of wisdom and you're bad at all of it!") and exceptionally poor common sense and willpower. As long as they're reasonable about explaining which aspects of wisdom define their low score, I'm cool with them creating a personality that appeals to their vision of their character.
Rogues are good examples of a class that can use a large number of skill points and a judicious use of feats to supplement substandard ability scores.
Following up the example given above, the rogue with a 7-8 wisdom could take sense motive and perception which are big rogue skills and iron will to represent the core force of will at their center.
However they lack the patience or desire to master a profession, they are all thumbs when it comes to first aid, and if left to their own devices in a forest will quickly starve to death.
Further in those situations where a wisdom ability check is appropriate (such a remembering details about a client's personal habits or name) the rogue is actually pretty bad.
If you include some sort of inspiration mechanic for determining a good course of action (d20+wisdom score) having a bad wisdom score might mean that the rogue is prone to coming up with bad, poorly formed plans (not that most PCs need help coming up with crazy plans). This actually seems like a pretty good description of the average rogue.
Just because the majority of the formalized systems revolve around class abilities and skills doesn't mean that you can't use the raw attribute in appropriate situations. Strength checks are the most formalized but a clue to solve a riddle might be an intelligence check, the ability to impress and dazzle in a social situation might be a charisma check, etc.
I also like to incorporate attractiveness not as an ability but rather as a feat or trait that modifies skill and attribute checks vs a certain percentage of the community. This works pretty well in M&M and I think it works okay in D&D as well.
That way you can have an attractive female PC that has a bonus to social interactions vs people that would be attracted to her. That might be modified by race or even negated (do mind flayers find comely elven lasses attractive?).
Sure it burns up a feat (or trait) but you can generally give bonus feats without throwing the balance of the game off.
This way attractiveness is at least partially uncoupled from ability scores but it still requires some expenditure of resources to be attractive.
Grognard Life.
That might be modified by race or even negated (do mind flayers find comely elven lasses attractive?).And then we are back with the table in 1e AD&D and expanded in 1e Unearthed Arcana or worse...
S.
A problem with this is then Charisma would have to be broken down into no less than 4 subdivisions of charisma: Personality, Leadership, Magnetism, and Appearance. Likewise it would actually probably have to include Force of Will as well, since it's used to set the DCs for opposed Charisma checks, as well as governs the Bard, Paladin, and Sorcerer's spells.
Then we also get into the complication of what each means for each thing. Likewise, then you're stepping away from the abstract system and trying to define everything (you'll need to divide wisdom at least 3 times, dexterity 3 times, intelligence a couple of times, and so forth). Strength would likely be the least likely one to need division since it represents something highly specific (something Mr. Fishy chooses to ignore when he keeps using Strength + Swim arguments which are faulty).
If we used the current system but modified checks based on their relative attractiveness, then the reverse becomes a problem. A character whose charisma is supposed to represent beauty is now at disadvantage compared to the one who was just generally likable. So you'd need the more complicated system. But in turn, the more complicated system is open to abuse (since as is, even having a charisma of 7 is a drawback worth considering, if we could dump specific portions to raise whatever we plan to use - such as dumping beauty to raise leadership, and then wear a mask).
Our current system provides the most flexibility with charisma with the most convenience as well. My low charisma character can be handsome with personality flaws, or my high charisma character can look like a dork and move people through his personality. Meanwhile, our skills (invisible ranks on a sheet that detail further characteristics of our characters) can fill in the gaps.
The problem I see is there are too many people metagaming. To me, this is the same thing as seeing someone's alignment on their sheet and then adjusting their responses and actions in game accordingly. Likewise, people are forgetting that in the context of the world as it is presented, the vast majority of people do not have a +4 or even a +2 to social skill checks. The vast majority have a big, fat, +0. If you have a character with a +1 to their social skill, then they're above average. A character with a +4 diplomacy due to skill ranks is just as good at speaking as someone with a +4 due to charisma alone, and in the context of the physics of the world they are both just as effective.
something Mr. Fishy
Thanks for the name drop.
>Mr. Fishy grin<
Mr. Fishy let players roll a seventh stat, appearance. It had no offical place in the game other RP. Nothing lost, nothing gained.
Bring back Comeliness?
There's a reason we don't have Comeliness as a stat today. It wasn't worth it. Even most 2E groups didn't use the Comeliness rules to my knowledge, and it just adds a layer of complexity that doesn't add anything particularly useful to the game.
I've shown on these very boards how the system can represent multiple character concepts, even allowing for charismatic characters who initially begin with a fairly low charisma stat, and can hit above average modifiers very early in their careers. I've shown how the system works and can work - as is - on a very wide variety of characters and character concepts while remaining mechanically viable even on a fairly low point-buy.
The problem I see is people metagaming and trying to force a very narrow view of what the numbers mean to them onto everyone and everyone else's characters, clinging fiercely to one out of four listed aspects of the most versatile ability score in the game (charisma) which is also the least impactful for being particularly high or particularly low. They can't actually provide any mechanical evidence for their claims, and actively ignore the mechanical evidence that proves them wrong (checks vs DCs, racial modifiers, high Cha creatures that are not beautiful or have no appreciation for beauty).
You basically end up with a less versatile, clunkier, more numbers based system and personalities ("X charisma means you have to be like this"), which is baseless and unfounded in the rules; and likewise is nothing but detrimental to the roleplaying aspects of the game. The term "roleplaying the numbers" makes me cringe, because I'd rather be "roleplaying the character" with the numbers representing the character in our fantasy world.
Who's with me on this?
Every time I've seen comeliness or appearance or something similar used in a game, it's been far more hurt than help.
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...?
You forgot AC for Dex, but a good list and a good point.
In order for people to stop dumping Charisma there has to be a mechanical benefit to keeping it. Like the Prof pointed out every stat is tied to skills, but Charisma is tied to nothing else.
In A Game of Thrones d20 they had a trait called Influence that you got with each class level that was also connected to Charisma. It represented the amount of control you exerted over specific people, like the King or Captain of the Castle Guard, or organizations like the King's Army or the Church. This was a lot of fun in that game, but in most Pathfinder games people don't care what they control besides their character.
You could tie it to an in game resource like hirelings, but I don't think that would really have that much effect. If you want people to invest in Charisma you need to tie it to something they actually care about.
You could institute some sort of Awe rule, where in any given combat both sides made an opposed Charisma role and the looser suffered a penalty for a number of rounds, from being cowed/intimidated. They sort of have something like this with the way Intimidate works, but if you made it a regular part of combat like initiative, people would stop auto dumping Charisma.
You could tie it to an in game resource like hirelings, but I don't think that would really have that much effect. If you want people to invest in Charisma you need to tie it to something they actually care about.
You could institute some sort of Awe rule, where in any given combat both sides made an opposed Charisma role and the looser suffered a penalty for a number of rounds, from being cowed/intimidated. They sort of have something like this with the way Intimidate works, but if you made it a regular part of combat like initiative, people would stop auto dumping Charisma.
But here's the real question. Is it worth it?
Why does everyone care so much? Why is it that some characters dumping their charisma seems to infuriate people so? Why is it that they feel like players must be punished because they don't care if their character has a -2 to Use Magic Device and Disguise, when the system can already represent what they want it to represent in their characters?
In short, why does Charisma have to be yet another ability score you want to have as high a possible? I'll tell you what, I have the solution to everyone's problem right here.
All characters use the following ability scores - ALWAYS: 12, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, arranged as desired.
There, now no one has to complain. :P
|
You could tie it to an in game resource like hirelings, but I don't think that would really have that much effect. If you want people to invest in Charisma you need to tie it to something they actually care about.
You could institute some sort of Awe rule, where in any given combat both sides made an opposed Charisma role and the looser suffered a penalty for a number of rounds, from being cowed/intimidated. They sort of have something like this with the way Intimidate works, but if you made it a regular part of combat like initiative, people would stop auto dumping Charisma.
But here's the real question. Is it worth it?
Why does everyone care so much? Why is it that some characters dumping their charisma seems to infuriate people so? Why is it that they feel like players must be punished because they don't care if their character has a -2 to Use Magic Device and Disguise, when the system can already represent what they want it to represent in their characters?
In short, why does Charisma have to be yet another ability score you want to have as high a possible? I'll tell you what, I have the solution to everyone's problem right here.
All characters use the following ability scores - ALWAYS: 12, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, arranged as desired.
There, now no one has to complain. :P
I can understand the school of thought where all stats should be thought of as equally important in the grand scheme of things. It makes dumping stats hurt more, and makes the well-rounded character (all 12s and a 13) a viable alternative. That's not currently the way the rules work, but it's the ideal of some people, apparently.
Also Ash, waiting on your post in pbp! ^_^
Solution ?
It's easy, make Charisma a prerequisite for Leadership (instead of a useless bonus to it).
Now charisma is the most important stats of all, because Leadership is the more powerful feat of all.
Solution ?
It's easy, make Charisma a prerequisite for Leadership (instead of a useless bonus to it).
Now charisma is the most important stats of all, because Leadership is the more powerful feat of all.
Indeed. Cha 20, no less. Gotta have it or not at all. Right? lol
|
|
To be honest, giving it a 13 CHA prerequisite would make sense when compared with other core feats: selective channeling, combat expertise, power attack, dodge, etc, are all feats that require someone to be naturally good at something. Of course someone who works hard at learning to be diplomatic will eventually please a crowd or a lady, but he'll never have that innate aura of leadership that the other guy has.
Solution ?
It's easy, make Charisma a prerequisite for Leadership (instead of a useless bonus to it).
Now charisma is the most important stats of all, because Leadership is the more powerful feat of all.
Cha determines the level of your cohort so it is not really useless for that feat.
The only thing that irks me is when the low intelligence and wisdom character is designing super complex plans. Now it could be said that he learned of the plan in fighter(other melee) training, but normally these plans are a solution to very specific situation. I don't punish it in my games, but I would remind the player of his mental stats.
PS: I do think it should be prereq for Leadership from an RP point of view.
To be honest, giving it a 13 CHA prerequisite would make sense when compared with other core feats: selective channeling, combat expertise, power attack, dodge, etc, are all feats that require someone to be naturally good at something. Of course someone who works hard at learning to be diplomatic will eventually please a crowd or a lady, but he'll never have that innate aura of leadership that the other guy has.
And yet humorously, Leadership was most would say was the Fighter's main quality in 2E (they gained a lot of followers based on their level, and I think some titles and stuff too, but it's been a while) would be the hardest one for them to effectively get. Charisma is the Fighter's absolutely most useless statistic in virtually every edition I can recall, and yet now for the fighter to grab a squire and some followers he's got to have a 13 in his most useless stat.
Seriously, we should just go with: 13, 13, 13, 12, 12, 12 and be done with it. Make everyone happuh! ^v^
To be honest, giving it a 13 CHA prerequisite would make sense when compared with other core feats: selective channeling, combat expertise, power attack, dodge, etc, are all feats that require someone to be naturally good at something. Of course someone who works hard at learning to be diplomatic will eventually please a crowd or a lady, but he'll never have that innate aura of leadership that the other guy has.
Yep, 13 CHA for leadership would be a good idea. However, if I was house-ruling that (I'm not, because most of my players don't dump charisma anyway), but if did, then I would nerf Sorcerers and Paladins. (;
Cha determines the level of your cohort so it is not really useless for that feat.
The only thing that irks me is when the low intelligence and wisdom character is designing super complex plans. Now it could be said that he learned of the plan in fighter(other melee) training, but normally these plans are a solution to very specific situation. I don't punish it in my games, but I would remind the player of his mental stats.
PS: I do think it should be prereq for Leadership from an RP point of view.
Well, it's mostly useless for good PCs, because, with the various Leadership Modifiers, it's too easy to reach the cohort's level cap of ''PC's level -2'' even with a poor charisma score. However, if you're playing an evil son of a b*tch or if you kill your cohort all the time, then a good charisma score can help you. :P
Well, it's mostly useless for good PCs, because, with the various Leadership Modifiers, it's too easy to reach the cohort's level cap of ''PC's level -2'' even with a poor charisma score. However, if you're playing an evil son of a b*tch or if you kill your cohort all the time, then a good charisma score can help you. :PCha determines the level of your cohort so it is not really useless for that feat.
The only thing that irks me is when the low intelligence and wisdom character is designing super complex plans. Now it could be said that he learned of the plan in fighter(other melee) training, but normally these plans are a solution to very specific situation. I don't punish it in my games, but I would remind the player of his mental stats.
PS: I do think it should be prereq for Leadership from an RP point of view.
Yeah. Kind of like Sidius in Star Wars. How many apprentices did he go through? Like 3 just in the movies, right? :P
Also, he was ugly as sin. Hahaha.
EDIT: On a side note, I always did like the Sith Lord from the SWD20 game. It was very similar to the Thrallherd in D&D, in which the whole class mostly revolves around having minions while you pull the strings.
That might be modified by race or even negated (do mind flayers find comely elven lasses attractive?).And then we are back with the table in 1e AD&D and expanded in 1e Unearthed Arcana or worse...
S.
I was specifically referring to importing the attractive feat from M&M which is already subjective in terms of the NPCs that it works on. I don't see why alien species such as aberrations would be impacted by an attractiveness trait or feat.
However if we are talking charisma in general while it's less obvious there are already precedents for charisma based stats having differing DCs based upon target attitude and nature. Creatures with high charisma are harder to diplomance and hostile creatures (most intelligent aberrations would fall into this catetgory) are harder to impact with diplomacy. Beyond that we have the language barrier to effect skill usage and DM awarded circumstance bonuses and penalties.
I'd really have no problem with applying a -2 circumstance penalty to a dwarf trying to convince an orc or goblin tribe to lay down their arms and stop fighting for instance. Millenia worth of racial hatred, books of grudge and bloody warfare are bound to hamper dialogue ;)
Besides several of us really like 1e so emphasizing an old school approach to social interaction really isn't that bad of a change.
|
I think the Fighter, the Rogue, and to a lesser extent, the Ranger, should be better (than their Cha would imply) at rallying the common folk.
People may be astounded by the abilities of the full casters, but even in the case of LG clerics and wizards, some portion of their fame will be founded in fear.
Fear of abilities you don't understand, fear that some dark pact had to be made to gain those powers, fear that they will judge mere mortals by some unrealistic, unattainable cosmic viewpoint.
Just because the kindly Sage of the Valley hasn't yet flipped out and burned your village to the ground, over some imagined disrespect, doesn't mean he couldn't, or wouldn't.
Just because the Heirophant of The Lifegiver hasn't got sick of your sinning ways, and sent you all on a suicide crusade into the crack of Hell, doesn't mean he couldn't, or wouldn't.
Martial PCs are more likely to speak in terms that are understandable to the majority of the population, using examples and context they can recall with their own senses.
When a band of strangers come to help defend your harvest, who are you going to listen to? The one in the armour, with dirt under his fingernails, who asks you to remember the Battle of Birchwood (cue bandy-legged village patriarch 'Hey! I was at that battle! You can count on my steel!'), or some ponce who's obviously never done a day's proper work in their life, and who waffles about the precedents set in the Canticles of Whojamathing?
I often have grateful villagers, rescued prisoners, potential henchmen approach the martial PCs in preference to the weird PCs, since the Commoners, Warriors and Experts of the world see them as being inherently more trustworthy and honest than one who relies on pacts with forces that are not of this world.
Since there's an entrenched view among many, that Muggles Can't Have Nice Things, maybe it's time their non-magical nature worked in their favour?
And yet humorously, Leadership was most would say was the Fighter's main quality in 2E (they gained a lot of followers based on their level, and I think some titles and stuff too, but it's been a while) would be the hardest one for them to effectively get. Charisma is the Fighter's absolutely most useless statistic in virtually every edition I can recall, and yet now for the fighter to grab a squire and some followers he's got to have a 13 in his most useless stat.
Not if you grant it as a bonus feat, which ignores pre-requisites, like the Ranger's Combat Styles.
Or a class ability, with another name (Entourage?), so that those who want to take high Cha can also benefit from taking the Leadership feat voluntarily.
You could put a condition on it, in the latter case, if you wish, that he has to have an established base of sufficient size, or (if he's a questing knight, or on campaign) a valid title from a recognised authority.
Then the 1st-Edition flavour is preserved.
If Leadship had a charisma prerequisite then it could reduce the level prerequisite. So then you could have a knight and squire at 3rd level. A not uncommon concept. Don Quixote and Sancho any one.
Mr. Fishy is going to have to playtest that. Bandit leader [3 rogue with 13 cha and leadership], a mercenary captain [3 fighter leadership cha 13]. Give a reason to have a cha and a beneft in game.
Not if you grant it as a bonus feat, which ignores pre-requisites, like the Ranger's Combat Styles.
Which brings up the #1 reason Charisma should be nothing more than a modifier for your Leadership score. The sheer fact that the moment someone casts touch of idiocy on you, then you lose the feat entirely until your charisma comes back up.
As it is now, you can take the feat, you can't lose the feat, and your charisma modifies the feat (so really, having a better Charisma is nice but not essential), so it works fine.
No one has answered my question yet though. Why is it so important? Why is it so important to force the fighter or someone else to have a high charisma when it means very little even in the context of the game? I mean, even with a 14 Charisma, it only means a 10% increase in your social skills (you will statistically convince 11 while the Cha 10 guy convinced 10 at the same DC).
Why argue about it, discuss all these ways to make it even more needed for the characters, and make it that much harder to fill out a character concept mechanically?
Stuff.
Well it's not important. If, as a GM, you don't give the opportunity to use social skills to your players, then don't expect them to have a huge charisma score. However, if you do, then the game will take care of it.
And beside, like it was previously mentionned, playing uncharismatic characters can be a lot of fun. I once played a wizard with very low ability scores, charisma included (we rolled ability scores in that game, and I did poorly), and I used Grima/Wormtongue as an inspiration for his personality. He was ugly like hell, but he used spell like change self and charm person to make himself look better. He was complexed by his own appearance and jealous of the prettier PCs. His personal goal was to become a powerful wizard, powerful enough to FORCE people to love him. He secretly fell in love with a beautiful elven maiden, the daughter of an elven king, nothing less. He was evil (maybe because of his lack of self-esteem, who knows?), but asked for no selfish reward while working for the elven king. He just wanted to stay around, long enough to find a way to subjugate the elven princess. I don't have to mention that this endend badly for him. (;
I'm not saying that you HAVE to be ugly if you have a low charisma, but remember that it can be fun to play.
Which brings up the #1 reason Charisma should be nothing more than a modifier for your Leadership score. The sheer fact that the moment someone casts touch of idiocy on you, then you lose the feat entirely until your charisma comes back up.
I think pathfinder did away with that.
From the faq
Ability damage only results in a penalty to actions associated with that ability score; it does NOT make you lose access to feats or spells that require ability score minimums, since your actual ability score does not lower. Only ability DRAIN can make you lose access to spells you can cast or feats that have prerequisites.
As an enhancement penalty, touch of idiocy wouldn't keep someone from casting spells, except that that particular spell specifically does so.
Which brings up the #1 reason Charisma should be nothing more than a modifier for your Leadership score. The sheer fact that the moment someone casts touch of idiocy on you, then you lose the feat entirely until your charisma comes back up.I think pathfinder did away with that.
From the faq
Ability damage only results in a penalty to actions associated with that ability score; it does NOT make you lose access to feats or spells that require ability score minimums, since your actual ability score does not lower. Only ability DRAIN can make you lose access to spells you can cast or feats that have prerequisites.
As an enhancement penalty, touch of idiocy wouldn't keep someone from casting spells, except that that particular spell specifically does so.
Y'know, that's wonderful news. ^-^
Even if I think that charisma is an important part of the game and should stay as one of the six abilities, I believe that racial modifiers to charisma are pretty stutpid. Think about it:
A dwarf is less likely to succeed a diplomacy check toward another dwarf than a gnome would be.
And this is not a problem.
Simplistically speaking... dwarves are surly people. Ever see how two surly people react to each other? It generally isn't pretty. It's part of the reason that dwarves never become the empire builders Humans are... they are generally focused craftsmen and don't play that nice with each other.
What about drow then? They have +2 CHA. Do you think they play nice to each other?
What about drow then? They have +2 CHA. Do you think they play nice to each other?Even if I think that charisma is an important part of the game and should stay as one of the six abilities, I believe that racial modifiers to charisma are pretty stutpid. Think about it:
A dwarf is less likely to succeed a diplomacy check toward another dwarf than a gnome would be.
And this is not a problem.
Simplistically speaking... dwarves are surly people. Ever see how two surly people react to each other? It generally isn't pretty. It's part of the reason that dwarves never become the empire builders Humans are... they are generally focused craftsmen and don't play that nice with each other.
Since most drow intercommunication would be basically either forming an alliance of convenience or manipulating one another, I imagine it's very cordial and pleasant on the surface, with sinister undertones. But then, when dealing with one another, they probably start off as suspicious rather than neutral.
But here's the real question. Is it worth it?
Why does everyone care so much? Why is it that some characters dumping their charisma seems to infuriate people so? Why is it that they feel like players must be punished because they don't care if their character has a -2 to Use Magic Device and Disguise, when the system can already represent what they want it to represent in their characters?
In short, why does Charisma have to be yet another ability score you want to have as high a possible? I'll tell you what, I have the solution to everyone's problem right here.
All characters use the following ability scores - ALWAYS: 12, 12, 12, 13, 13, 13, arranged as desired.
There, now no one has to complain. :P
People dumping Charisma doesn't infuriate me. Bad game design infuriates me. What is the point of having 6 attributes if, with the exception of the few classes you forced to invest in it, everyone ignores one of them. In Paizo's defense the whole Charisma issue is one they inherited, but they still did little to nothing to make it a valid attribute.
Another solution to the problem is dump the stat entirely, lower the point buy, change all the Charisma based casters to another stat and be done with it. I don't like that idea because Charisma is historically one of the six attributes, and people only dump it because it doesn't do anything.
Making everyone average and all attributes equal is obviously not the solution, and I'm pretty sure you're joking.
Here is a suggestion.
Every class get's Influence Points as they level, just like skill points (i.e. a Wizard might get 2+Cha Mod Influence Points, a Bard 8+Cha Influence Points).
Influence Points can be used to by in-game rewards such as: Titles, Monikers, Estates, and Followers.
Titles- give automatic social bonuses, such as a +1 Step to NPC Initial reaction if they recognize your title.
Monikers- in game effects caused by your reputation, such as when you by the Lightning Hands Moniker you get a +1 initiative against any intelligent opponent that recognizes your moniker.
Estates- In game wealth that is not counted against your WBL, people would invest in Charisma to get extra gear.
Followers- Ditch the leadership feat entirely and totally tie cohorts, followers, and allies to your Charisma.
You can't just punish players for designing their characters the most effective way possible, you need to reward players for exploring other aspects of the game.
|
|
NEWSFLASH- this just in: Nay-sayers say "nay"!
Grumble grumble bork snarf why Charisma WHY GOD WHY!?! THE CHILDREN!! THINK OF ALL THE POOR UGLY CHILDREN!!!
Make your Charisma 30 or 3, have fun playing the game, win/win.
Social skills and things based on force of personality will suffer if you are ugly and/or surly, but not much if you're smart.
Doesn't seem like poor game design, seems pretty sound to me.
In order for people to stop dumping Charisma there has to be a mechanical benefit to keeping it.
1: Kingmaker!
2: a player trying to "rp higher charisma than the char has" is not really problem. In that case, low cha means they are obnoxious shallow posers/snobs/smartasses. While they are beautiful, witty, diplomatic and inspiring in their own opinion -and act as if they are- everyone else just happen to think otherwise.
3: Charisma (in my campaigns at least) is all about how you make people feel, and the ability to manipulate those feelings.
High-charisma paladins make you feel safe in their presence, high-charima sorcers make you feel awed, high-charima rogues make you feel you can trust them, high-charisma generals make you willing to risk your life.
As for "mechanical benefits", the need depends on the DM and campaign setting. In my campaigns, high-charisma characters will have better chances of purchasing given items and getting specific spells cast (including raise/ressurect) and get more rewards. But much more importantly, dumping cha (or generally making a min/max munchkin) is a clear signal that you are a roll-player more than a role-player, and as a result i'll shape my campaign more around the stories of the other players. Want spotlight outside of combat? then don't dump charisma.
(I just loved the reaction when the munchkin player in my group heard npc bards singing about the exploits of the party - with the rp'ers portrayed as the heroes and he as the stupid henchman)
But much more importantly, dumping cha (or generally making a min/max munchkin) is a clear signal that you are a roll-player more than a role-player, and as a result i'll shape my campaign more around the stories of the other players. Want spotlight outside of combat? then don't dump charisma.
(I just loved the reaction when the munchkin player in my group heard npc bards singing about the exploits of the party - with the rp'ers portrayed as the heroes and he as the stupid henchman)
I call bull on the bolded part.
Not every character I want to "roleplay" is a social butterfly.
Not every character I want to "roleplay" is friendly outgoing and able to make friends/influence people.
Sometimes I want to role play a socially ackward wizard that grew up in his ivory tower -- that nevertheless still wants to impress the princess -- if only he knew how to talk to her.
Having a high charisma =/= a good role-player -- or even someone interested in role playing.
Likewise dumping charisma =/= a "roll-player" that only is interested in the numbers.
I laugh at your presumptions sir.
Your opinion that because my character isn't a social professional that I don't have a storyline and don't want to role-play and need to be punished for it by letting everyone else have all the glory/good/etc. is useless bunk that impedes good role-playing by making it all about the numbers!
Yes irony of ironies you make it into a number game by making those with higher charisma into the ones that get extra benefits due to a higher number on the paper instead of the abilities of the player and the strength (story and personality wise) of the character.
I laugh at your presumptions sir.Your opinion that because my character isn't a social professional that I don't have a storyline and don't want to role-play ...
it is always clarifying to have someone else tell what your opinions are. Let me define and re-phrase:
1. "dumping" in this context means (to me) saying that cha is less important than other stats in the game (or at least for your way of playing it). Choosing a low charisma becuase you want to play a socially inept character is *not* the same as dumping it, since the cha score then is an important part of your character.
2. building a combat-optimised character with no 'rp flavour' is to me a clear signal that the dice-rolling part of the game is more important than storytelling. Building a (non-optimised) character to match a rp concept is a clear signal that the storyline is more important to you than dealing an extra point of damage.
my point is not about high or low charisma characters - building a munchkin sorcerer with 22 charisma isn't going to give you extra spotlight in the story. My point is that a player dumping charisma *because it is useless in combat* sends a clear signal to me about what they think is important in the game.
Ok i apologize if this has been mentioned but my eyes started to glaze over after page 2 :) however i feel i need to ask a question.
For those who see charisma as physical appearance how does magic buffs to the stat change things? For instance if my ugly cha 7 character puts on a headband that adds +6 cha does he suddenly look more attractive and if so what about the eagle's splendor spell?
From my point of view if the giant strength belt doesn't turn me into Arnie then why should my headband (not a good look at the best of times :P)) make me pretty?
it is always clarifying to have someone else tell what your opinions are. Let me define and re-phrase:1. "dumping" in this context means (to me) saying that cha is less important than other stats in the game (or at least for your way of playing it). Choosing a low charisma becuase you want to play a socially inept character is *not* the same as dumping it, since the cha score then is an important part of your character.g
2. building a combat-optimised character with no 'rp flavour' is to me a clear signal that the dice-rolling part of the game is more important than storytelling. Building a (non-optimised) character to match a rp concept is a clear signal that the storyline is more important to you than dealing an extra point of damage.
my point is not about high or low charisma characters - building a munchkin sorcerer with 22 charisma isn't going to give you extra spotlight in the story. My point is that a player dumping charisma *because it is useless in combat* sends a clear signal to me about what they think is important in the game.
+1 Please except pie.
|
|
Ok i apologize if this has been mentioned but my eyes started to glaze over after page 2 :) however i feel i need to ask a question.
For those who see charisma as physical appearance how does magic buffs to the stat change things? For instance if my ugly cha 7 character puts on a headband that adds +6 cha does he suddenly look more attractive and if so what about the eagle's splendor spell?
From my point of view if the giant strength belt doesn't turn me into Arnie then why should my headband (not a good look at the best of times :P)) make me pretty?
I tend to think that "pretty" is only a tangible facet of Charisma that you can use to describe your character is you choose to. Charisma is considered a mental ability score (physical=Str/Dex/Con, mental=Int/Wis/Cha) aka "force of personality". Hence the hideous demons and undead with astronomic Charisma scores.
An example: Radovan the tiefling from Prince of Wolves, and other Pathfinder fiction by Dave Gross, is "devilishly handsome" and physically well-built, however in James Sutter's article in KQ #14 his Charisma is a 6, and this comes across in his surliness, abrasive attitude, and infernal mein. A character with a sub-par Charisma can be aesthetically pleasing, even beautiful, but once they open their mouth then their inferior "force of personality" comes out and there you have it.
So, if we go with "force of personality", your ugly Charisma 7 character puts on the headband and is still physically the same, but finds that now he seems to be able to say the right things when before he used to put his foot in his mouth.
Or, if you want Charisma to be more physical in your game, then his teeth can straighten, his acne clears, his hair is straighter, whatever, but that's a house-rule type of thing and takes away from Charisma being a mental ability score (like my example somewhere before where a player in my game plays a stinky dwarf: it doesn't have anything to do with "force of personality" but that's how he wants to role-play it).
I think players should be able to role play and play their character how ever they like. The best example of why it does not make sense to force a player to play a character acording to stats, is that alot of times they cannot. It is possible to play down but not up. I would say that most players that play a wizard with int 18 do not have the IQ of 200 plus needed to play the character the right way. So since it is not possible to do it all of the time and in fact you can only in effect down play what you can do. You would need to tell all of the players who say I am going to play a 18int wizard, Are you smart enough to do so? If not, you cannot play a wizard with an 18int here play this 12int wizard instead since you will be able to role-play it right. THAT IS NOT FUN, so lets just let people play character how they wish. This is a game, and I think most people play games to have fun. Right?
PS; I only read the first few post.
I tend to think that "pretty" is only a tangible facet of Charisma that you can use to describe your character is you choose to. Charisma is considered a mental ability score (physical=Str/Dex/Con, mental=Int/Wis/Cha) aka "force of personality". Hence the hideous demons and undead with astronomic Charisma scores.
An example: Radovan the tiefling from Prince of Wolves, and other Pathfinder fiction by Dave Gross, is "devilishly handsome" and physically well-built, however in James Sutter's article in KQ #14 his Charisma is a 6, and this comes across in his surliness, abrasive attitude, and infernal mein. A character with a sub-par Charisma can be aesthetically pleasing, even beautiful, but once they open their mouth then their inferior "force of personality" comes out and there you have it.
So, if we go with "force of personality", your ugly Charisma 7 character puts on the headband and is still physically the same, but finds that now he seems to be able to say the right things when before he used to put his foot in his mouth.
Or, if you want Charisma to be more physical in your game, then his teeth can straighten, his acne clears, his hair is straighter, whatever, but that's a house-rule type of thing and takes away from Charisma being a mental ability score (like my example somewhere before where a player in my game plays a stinky dwarf: it doesn't have anything to do with "force of...
I may have missed my own point :)
I fully agree with you Ian i was hoping to hear from those who are on the other side of this issue, basically trying to make the point that if you consider charisma to be beauty then how would you explain artificial enhancement to it...
... hmm i seem to have answered my own question though as soon as i used the word artificial my brain leapt to the fact that lighting and makeup can effect appearance so i'll shut up now and let those with a fully working brain continue :D
But much more importantly, dumping cha (or generally making a min/max munchkin) is a clear signal that you are a roll-player more than a role-player, and as a result i'll shape my campaign more around the stories of the other players. Want spotlight outside of combat? then don't dump charisma.
I think the whole role-player vs. roll-player argument, is just flat out snobbery, and completely ignores the other word that belongs their - game.
This isn't story hour, it's a game. And punishing a player for not developing his story telling skills isn't the best way to get someone to mesh with your play style.
But much more importantly, dumping cha (or generally making a min/max munchkin) is a clear signal that you are a roll-player more than a role-player, and as a result i'll shape my campaign more around the stories of the other players. Want spotlight outside of combat? then don't dump charisma.
I think the whole role-player vs. roll-player argument, is just flat out snobbery, and completely ignores the other word that belongs their - game.
This isn't story hour, it's a game. And punishing a player for not developing his story telling skills isn't the best way to get someone to mesh with your play style.
It's not snobbery to say that you don't enjoy it, and if you're running a game that's more like a LARP or improvisational theater and less like a miniatures battle, it's perfectly fine to tell people that.
I talked with some players last night who said that they didn't like talking in character and they particularly got freaked out when people apart from the GM did funny voices. I said I did exactly both of those things, though I have gotten annoyed when some players did comic accents when we were trying to run a serious scene. Then again comic characters can be a problem for non-comedic plots.
To put it another way, if everyone wants story hour, that's fine. If everyone wants miniatures battle, that's fine too. Everyone has their cup of tea for the hobby and is free to say which one they prefer.