The problem is that in attempting to fix something that isn't broken, you are actually breaking things.
The game *already has* a use for Charisma. If you choose to ignore it and not enforce it, then why bother? You are instead trying to remake the rules around "Charisma must be useful so my PC's won't use it as a dumpstat". Its far easier and less troublesome to just say 'PC's- do not use Charisma as a dumpstat". Game balance is preserved, nothing has to be rewritten.
It is a player's fault for dumping Charisma. It is your fault for not enforcing Charisma in the campaign so that they do not dump it. Do not "punish" someone for dumping it- but rather just continue to play the game as written. Do not "ignore" them when it comes to Charisma roles just because they dumped it. Instead, just keep going along. it won't come up every game session but their obvious weakness will come into play.
I've already posted ways that are perfectly within the current rules as written to do this.
What you are Doing is altering the power structure of the game, and that screws heavily with the "half casters" who already need a ton of stats. I currently play an arcane-duelist bard from the APG. Under your "we'll move saves around to different ability scores" scenario I could not do that. Now, he doesn't have a dumpstat.. but getting a DC anywhere decent is hard enough already without having to mandate multiple high mental stats. (all of his ability scores were 10 or higher at character creation).
Not just that but now suddenly Clerics- who use wisdom and charisma already, suddenly get a boost while Sorcs, bards, wizards.. basically every other full caster gets hosed.
I clearly disagree with the whole concept- but honestly.. if you want to "make charisma more attractive" (no pun intended, even if its a good 'un!) then you need to add new things to the game rather than shift old ones around. You are still making characters who already prefer charisma More powerful though and they honestly don't need it.
I'm going to quit derailing your thread with my posts.. but seriously, honestly.. think about the total class balance you are jacking with when you go and do something as simple as you are suggesting. It is a very big thing you are doing that will have far reaching effects across your campaign.
-S
I can lend some perspective on Fractal's position.
For years our gaming group merrily went along with the Player's Handbook (PHB) rule that prescribes Wisdom as the talent behind characters’/creatures’ Will saving throws. But the descriptions for both Wisdom and Charisma (as presented in Chapter 1 of the PHB) just seemed... well... a bit disjointed when read in light of the description of Will saves under Combat Basics (“[Will] saves reflect [one’s] resistance to mental influence as well as many magical effects”).
If “Wisdom represents being in tune with and aware of one’s surroundings” and Charisma “represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting”, then Charisma seemed – at least to us – to be the better well-spring of willpower. On several occasions we sat around the gaming table debating the value and potential effects of moving Wisdom out of the way and instilling Charisma as the root of willpower, but it wasn't until one of us picked up WotC’s Complete Adventurer from a local hobby store, and we became aware to its Force of Personality feat, that our group voted to actually make the switch.
Our implementation of this universal house-rule had nothing to do with Charisma being a “dump” stat for everyone except the Sorceress and Bard. Additionally, it wasn’t made with any consideration relative to Single- vs. Multiple-Ability-Dependency (SAD vs. MAD). Instead, we just wanted to correlate the strength of one’s personality with his/her/its willpower and until we saw that the game’s designers were open to the idea of Charisma as the driving force behind Will (or, put another way, that there wasn’t some sublime mechanical reason behind Wisdom contributing its modifier to Will), we weren’t willing to alter such a fundamental aspect of our game for fear of creating unexpected negative consequences. (Which is funny in and of itself, because now we play a heavily modified rule-set.)
However, as expected, Charisma became a universally attractive basic ability because it is now the talent that defeats detrimental mind-affecting effects.
The problem that Charisma has always had compared to the other attributes is that it is very difficult to actually translate it into mechanical application. The the possible exceptions of Perform and Sense Motive, Charisma based skills require a great deal of DM judgment, even with the already lengthy descriptions for those skills. Thus, use of charisma requires two things to be successful. First, it needs a DM that has the time and flexibility to be able to incorporate charisma based situations on a routine basis; given that their job is already challenging enough, this is not a minor hurdle. Second, it requires a high level of trust and communication between player and DM to maintain a consistent set of standards of how things like diplomacy will work; especially in organized play, this is going to be virtually impossible, and it is far from a guarantee in a home group.
The other major problem is that very few people actually read the book in my experience, especially players, except for the a few sentences here and there that seem to directly apply to them. This means that while the various uses for charisma are actually reasonably well documented, they are very rarely understood. This leads DMs to either ditch such things completely or think that radical changes are required when simple tweaks will do.
In the end, the only real effective way to remove charisma as a dump stat is to run campaigns that use it. Sure the elven sorcerer may have an 18 CHA and the dwarven fighter may have a 7, but how many dwarves are going to talk to an elf when there is an dwarf standing there? Things like that or other simple modifications to interactions with npcs can make it clear that all characters may at some point actually have to interact with the rest of the world, and thus deliberately dumping charisma could have a backlash that hurts the entire party.
Expanding one's understanding of the existing rules, through actual reading and usage of them, can be time consuming, especially for groups that have limited time to play, but it is really the only way to fix the problem. No solution is going to truly be effective if the problem is not truly understood, and every solution is going to take a fair bit of time to get used to at first, with familiarity making it easier and more likely to be used.
That seems like a solid idea, though it could definitely use some polishing. For one, I wouldn't start handing out influence points until the PCs reach a certain level (which level could depend on the flavor of the setting). I certainly wouldn't give them any at 1st level, possibly even holding off until 5th or 6th depending on the exact benefits allowed.Setting followers off of influence points is quite easy--you use influence points to 'buy' follower 'capacity'. Picking up a cohort or similar ally would be a bit trickier...certainly more expensive, maybe represented as using a fraction of your total IP, rather than a set point value.
Estates brings to mind the 0ed rules that grant you a castle, tower, or cathedral at a certain level. Definitely nice flavor, and something that shows up in many games anyway. Can also be expanded to include lesser dwellings, tax-paying holdings, and in limited cases adventuring gear (don't want to go overboard here--else you'll start seeing filthy rich sorcerers everywhere).
Titles could be partly linked to estates--certain titles would require you to have certain land holdings, where others could be official appointments (thinking the leadership positions from Kingmaker).The hardest part, if one was to use this rule, is making sure there's something for all characters--not every character is going to want a noble title, lands, and serfs. In particular, casters might be tricky...perhaps the improved familiar feat could be wrapped into this somehow?
I think it is an idea that has some merit, but could definitely use more thought. I think you would have to start handing them out at 1st Level, but unlike other character creation resources I think you would have to allow players to bank them. A 1st level character might only have enough IP for a 0 Level follower or if they had a high Charisma maybe a title like Sir.
Having something for everyone to spend their IP on, is my greatest concern. Titles do not have to be limited to noble titles. They might include church titles or simply epitaphs that everyone recognizes like Archmage or Warlord. Estates don't have to be land holdings granted to nobles, and maybe Holdings is a better name. They might be the support of a church, guild, magic academy, or barbarian tribe. I thought if nothing else players would enjoy monikers/reputations. Maybe the cheap ones simply provide a small bonus to a social skill. Mike the Skullsplitter might get a +1 to Intimidate, while Joe the Everfaithful might get a +1 to Diplomacy. Where as a more expensive moniker might be Terry of the Seven Shadows +3 to Stealth near dusk/dawn or Lucky re-roll one save 1/day or week.
A good way to include everyone is to include some sort of Hero point/Action Point mechanic. Everyone, no matter how loner they are, can always use Action Points.
I also think that in adding house rules underpowered is always more desirable than overpowered. A strong consideration in assigning IP to each class would be to improve balance between casters and non-casters. Even though full casters might actually have a tremendous amount of influence on the game world, you would definitely want to give non-casters the upperhand in IP. I think in developing the mechanic what you want to shoot for is every player wishing they had more, and no player thinking that another PC is broken or overpowered, because of the new mechanic.
Good stuff
I don't quote often so if I screwed that up, I apologize.
And I think I'm resigned to thread-jacking in spoilers.. lol :)
-S
In my own game, through no special effort, Charisma has become more influential at higher levels. Those with high CHA have the reputation of heroes, those PCs with low CHA have the reputation of sidekicks.
This.
The high Charisma 'natural standouts' are the ones who most often get addressed as the assumption is usually that they are the leader. Even when the party pushes someone else forward, they usually are overlooked.
Unless of course, the person with lower CHA has tried to offset the low stat with some skills, but that wont do anything for them 'on first impressions'
The problem is that in attempting to fix something that isn't broken, you are actually breaking things.
If it wasn't broken, then Charisma wouldn't be a stat that is dumped at least twice as often as any other.
The game *already has* a use for Charisma. If you choose to ignore it and not enforce it, then why bother?
Charisma does three things.
1) It provides a bonus to 7 skills
2) It is the basis for casting for Sorcerers, Paladins, and Bards
3) It is the basis for Charm/Binding spells
Other than that RAW, it does nothing. When compared to the other 5 attributes that is really weak. Especially considering that if you are a non-caster only number 1 applies. Charisma skills have an in-game effect. Charisma itself really doesn't.
You are instead trying to remake the rules around "Charisma must be useful so my PC's won't use it as a dumpstat". Its far easier and less troublesome to just say 'PC's- do not use Charisma as a dumpstat". Game balance is preserved, nothing has to be rewritten.It is a player's fault for dumping Charisma. It is your fault for not enforcing Charisma in the campaign so that they do not dump it. Do not "punish" someone for dumping it- but rather just continue to play the game as written. Do not "ignore" them when it comes to Charisma roles just because they dumped it. Instead, just keep going along. it won't come up every game session but their obvious weakness will come into play.
It is completely possible to cover up dumped Charisma with skill points. Example: A character with a 10 Int and a 10 Cha vs. a character with a 12 Int and an 8 Cha. They both have the same point buy. While the first character takes no penalty on Charisma skills, the second character can completely negate the -1 to 7 Charisma skills in 7 levels, because of the additional skill point per level. After that all advantage goes to the second build.
What you are Doing is altering the power structure of the game, and that screws heavily with the "half casters" who already need a ton of stats.
The only "half caster" I can think of that doesn't already need Charisma is the Ranger. Bards and Paladins already use it as their primary casting stat- it would actually help them.
Not just that but now suddenly Clerics- who use wisdom and charisma already, suddenly get a boost while Sorcs, bards, wizards.. basically every other full caster gets hosed.
Sorcerers and Bards already use Charisma as their primary casting stat, so I don't see how they are getting hosed. But I am not in favor of moving anything around or altering the current mechanics. I think to fix the problem you add mechanics and player resources.
then you need to add new things to the game rather than shift old ones around.
I totally agree.
You are still making characters who already prefer charisma More powerful though and they honestly don't need it.I'm going to quit derailing your thread with my posts.. but seriously, honestly.. think about the total class balance you are jacking with when you go and do something as simple as you are suggesting. It is a very big thing you are doing that will have far reaching effects across your campaign.
I've seen some of the suggestions I've offered in practice, and frankly it didn't really unbalance the game at all. Using Influence (AGOT style) didn't gimp characters that had average Charisma scores it benefited characters that had good ones. Unlike HP or AC it really isn't a vital game resource, so if you chose to skip it it didn't hurt you. If you chose to invest in it, it made Charisma based chracters actually viable.
On the original topic:
On these boards I have seen it suggested that the every present character's charisma modifier should affect diplomacy.
I have seen it suggested that when a social situation comes upon a group, one could roll initiative, but with charisma instead of dex, to determine who gets to act first.
I like the hero/action points based on Charisma. It would be easy to say 3+ Cha mod, and it should be a smooth addition. Furthermore it would help create some balance within the wizards/sorcerer realm where some think Wizards are far superior.
For a first run-through, I'm putting aside all of the Leadership recommendations, as they really apply only to a corner-case at mid- to upper levels.
TOZ's tying action points to Charisma is a solid recommendation, as action points are useful to everyone, at all levels. However, they are most useful to people who roll a lot of dice -- i.e., not wizards. Therefore, I've also toyed with the idea of making all spell DCs Charsima-based. This has two effects:
(1) Encourages wizards not to dump Cha.
(2) Sets up a MAD scenario for wizards and druids in particular (clerics already arguably needed Cha for channeling). For wizards, this is the first taste of what it's like to be a melee character with multiple critical (not just "nice to have") stats. Druids are powerful enough already, and have enough no save spells that dumping Cha is still viable, although not as attractive, depending on what they want to focus on.
For a first run-through, I'm putting aside all of the Leadership recommendations, as they really apply only to a corner-case at mid- to upper levels.
TOZ's tying action points to Charisma is a solid recommendation, as action points are useful to everyone, at all levels. However, they are most useful to people who roll a lot of dice -- i.e., not wizards. Therefore, I've also toyed with the idea of making all spell DCs Charsima-based. This has two effects:
(1) Encourages wizards not to dump Cha.
(2) Sets up a MAD scenario for wizards and druids in particular (clerics already arguably needed Cha for channeling). For wizards, this is the first taste of what it's like to be a melee character with multiple critical (not just "nice to have") stats. Druids are powerful enough already, and have enough no save spells that dumping Cha is still viable, although not as attractive, depending on what they want to focus on.
Doesn't forcing Wizards to use Cha kind of eliminate the grouchy, hermit, hedge-wizard type and the nerdy, anti-social, book-worm type?
This means that Wizards are no longer just very intelligent, they have to be Charismatic as well in order to be good at it.
I'm for the action points idea as it still gives people the option of playing a non-charismatic character without sacrificing too much. Just don't think penalizing a class with it is such a great idea.
Gandalf, Sauruman, Merlin... all very charismatic wizards.
So there is precedent for doing it, they arent all social 'tards :p
Doesn't forcing Wizards to use Cha kind of eliminate the grouchy, hermit, hedge-wizard type and the nerdy, anti-social, book-worm type?
Not if they dump Charisma, and either accept the lower save DCs or stick with no-save spells.
Gandalf, Sauruman, Merlin... all very charismatic wizards.
So there is precedent for doing it, they arent all social 'tards :p
I didn't say, or even imply, that they all are. I said that certain types of popular character styles get shafted.
If charisma is the determining factor for save DCs then all "great" wizards have to be Intelligent and Charismatic.
Gandalf, Sauruman, Merlin... all very charismatic wizards.
So there is precedent for doing it, they arent all social 'tards :p
I didn't say, or even imply, that they all are. I said that certain types of popular character styles get shafted.
If charisma is the determining factor for save DCs then all "great" wizards have to be Intelligent and Charismatic.
Sure, but I think a lot of people just stick to the old 'boring as dirt and without personality wizard' as there is no advantage whatsoever to have a personality - so very very few (none?) would ever roll up anything like those legendary figures, which is a bit of a shame.
Perhaps a feat (chain?) allowing those utilising the Charm school to add CHA mods to the resist checks?
Making wizard use cha for spell DC would force them even further into the 'god' type wizard that uses no-save conjuration spells.
Once more, conjuration soars above the other schools, while every other kind of offense suffers.
Pray that you're not playing an evoker.
Pray that you're not playing an evoker.
If you're playing an evoker in 3.X, you've already proven you don't care about minor quibbles like math and numbers in a metagame sense, or basic effectiveness in-game.
One house rule I have used in the past is that one's Charisma modifier is applied to your AC for the purposes of critical hit confirmation rolls (for 'named' N/PCs only).
Essentially this represents them being fated or favored by the gods or that their force of personality drives them such that they are otherwise lucky or tenacious. Perhaps they just have too much left to accomplish in this life for mere bad luck to undo all that is written in the stars.
Essentially this represents them being fated or favored by the gods or that their force of personality drives them such that they are otherwise lucky or tenacious. Perhaps they just have too much left to accomplish in this life for mere bad luck to undo all that is written in the stars.
I like the flavor. Mechanically, though, this increases the already-formidable multiple ability dependence of warriors, and doesn't affect the wizard much, if at all. Was that your intent?
Really it only increases their MAD if they would have otherwise dumped Charisma. If their Charisma is 10+ already, then they see either no change or gain a benefit. Meanwhile, those classes with strong presences (paladins, bards, clerics, sorcerers) get a bit more verve reinforcing their image as favored by fate or luck.
To me, there is a distinction between someone who is a great warrior and a great leader. Someone with a Cha of 7 might make a great commando or bodyguard, but I'm dubious that toughness alone would make them a great strategist or leader or men. It's the same reason why just because someone might be a brilliant technician doesn't necessarily mean they'd be a great project manager.
As I see it, chances are someone who lacks that force of personality is probably serving someone else's plan rather than pushing thru their own. Call it a matter of resolve perhaps.
An alternate implementation would simply be to apply a Charisma bonus rather than the Charisma modifier. That would not disadvantage someone who dumps Charisma, but it would benefit those who have some greater purpose.
Mind you, in my current group, we have hardly had a problem with people dumping Charisma. The party leader has Cha 20 (22 with an item), the wizard is Cha 21, cleric is Cha 20, and the fighter/rogue is Cha 17. Only the leader's bodyguard has a Cha of 7 and they are roleplayed as such.
Also note that the crit confirmation houserule I mentioned is not in-use with this group. We just all happen to like having personable and engaging characters. ;)
An important thing to keep in mind is that you don't want to force people to have high charisma. It should be a useful option, but not mandatory for an effective character.
An important thing to keep in mind is that you don't want to force people to have high charisma. It should be a useful option, but not mandatory for an effective character.
Depends. A high Constitution is basically mandatory for an effective character (admittedly less so in Pathfinder, now that they're handing out free hp left and right) -- so why shouldn't all stats be equally important?
That's not quite what I said.
Most martial characters can comfortably have a 10 in int or wis without hurting themselves too much. Primary casters can do without strength.
We shouldn't try forcing a position where less than 14 charisma is going to wreck someone.
We shouldn't try forcing a position where less than 14 charisma is going to wreck someone.
Agreed... with the caveat that an acceptable solution also involves a Cha of 5 definitely wrecking someone.
Of course.
I've considered the following modifications to 3.x
Strength: Damage on melee attacks and touch attacks, damage on most ranged attacks, ability to carry things
Dexterity: To Hit on all attacks,
Agility: Some Dex skills, Reflex save, Init.
Constitution: Health and fort saves.
Intelligence: Languages known at start, number of skill points, multiple melee feat requirements
Personality/Willpower: Will saves, Cha skills, some Wis-based skills, .
This combines what Wisdom and Charisma did into one skill, with the exception of class-based abilities and spell casting. These either go to Personality or Agility based on the class. For example, Sorcerer and Bard would go to Agility, while Holy Wis-based classes would go to Personality.
The end result makes each stat useful in combat to some degree. It takes away from the ubber Stregth (to hit) and moves all to hit to Dex. But balances Dex by moving Ref save and Init to Agility.
Charisma can be considered to be a character's force of personality etc. and is used with use magic device to handle magic items. I am considering a house rule where rather than limiting a PC's magic items by body parts (which leads to the xmas tree effect) a character is limited to one item per point of charisma, which he has to attune to over several hours/days (note that 'item' here is really 'power' to prevent players from combining several items into one to get around the ruling). Since magic items are an important part of any character, dumping charisma will have a knock on effect.
3.5 Magic Item Compendium had some nice items that get more powerfull for high charisma caracters. Is logical that you can influnce some items with charima it's the state usesed for use magic device....
It's not easy to balance but still i loved the idear that even fighter add a point or two to charisma to use some items.
There was a weapon enchantment that allowed to stun a opponent with a successfull hit. The save DC and the number of time the ability could be uses was chrisma based. My sommoner would use one longspear with this enchantment if we would still use 3.5.
But anyway it's save to event some stuff that get's better with a high personalitiy that can force the semi-intelegent items to do more powerfull stuff...
Breiti
After doing a lot of lurking on the Dumping the charisma thread, I thought it would be beneficial to have a place to compile some house rules for making Charisma a more attractive stat.
First, some food for thought "borrowed" from ProfessorCirno
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~I would add to Charisma's category that it increases Leadership, arguable the most powerful feat (but one that isn't always allowed).
So, post your house rule suggestions for making Charisma a stat that gives some decent mechanical benefits.
I have never had a problem with charisma, in the current campaign i'm playing in it's easily the most used stat, we've have entire game where strength didn't really come into play but all of us have made diplomacy rolls.
I have never had a problem with charisma, in the current campaign i'm playing in it's easily the most used stat, we've have entire game where strength didn't really come into play but all of us have made diplomacy rolls.
You're sort of missing the point -- if your entire group chooses to do something that has no real mechanical benefit, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with the fact that Charisma has very little mechanical benefit (unless you're a spontaneous caster or a paladin).
If you can buy a large ice cream cone for the same price as a smaller one, and 10 people all decide to get small ones anyway, that's OK, too. But the pricing situation still doesn't make a lot of sense.
You're sort of missing the point -- if your entire group chooses to do something that has no real mechanical benefit, that's fine. But it has nothing to do with the fact that Charisma has very little mechanical benefit (unless you're a spontaneous caster or a paladin).
If you can buy a large ice cream cone for the same price as a smaller one, and 10 people all decide to get small ones anyway, that's OK, too. But the pricing situation still doesn't make a lot of sense.
I know this isn't a real response, but, has it ever had a mechanical benefit? Much like material requirements costing over 1gp and bards. ;-)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm all for saves being based off of CHA.
Matthew's Stats philosophy
I feel the six stats do line up with a 'physical set' mirroring a 'mental set'.
Strength = Physical force, Charisma = Mental force.
Dexterity = Physical finesse, Intelligence = Mental finesse.
Constitution = Physical toughness, Wisdom = Mental toughness.
If you look at DCs as the force the spell is hitting with then it would make sense to have the DC be cha based (and increase MAD for the wizard)
Matthew's 'How Casters Work' unified theory.
Intelligence casters = using formulae and knowing 'loopholes in the universe' Just as some people have a knack for calcualting angles and doing 3-D geometry in their heads, intelligence casters can make the mystical 'trig' to get a fireball.
Wisdom casters = More conduits for the power flowing through them, it's akin to the guy who can hold on to the electric fence the longest.
Charisma casters = taking the magical energy and forcing it to do what they want by sheer force of will.
Using those, Charisma as DC setting stat works. It doesn't matter how you get the 'hit', but does matter how hard you hit.
As for the non-casters and Charisma, the 'mechanical benefits' do come through in not just skills, but raw checks. The penality can be overcome with some skills, but in PFRPG, w/o synergy bonuses, you're still spending resources from somewhere else to build up the 'hole' you've left in Charisma.
As to the 'hermit, cranky wizard' stereotype. Nothing says that a high Charisma character is always egarious and outgoing, anymore than the high dex guy is always wirey and thin. Besides, isn't the trope that the gruff surley wizard has a reputation for being gruff and surley, and the kids still come looking for him anyway?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
As for the non-casters and Charisma, the 'mechanical benefits' do come through in not just skills, but raw checks. The penality can be overcome with some skills, but in PFRPG, w/o synergy bonuses, you're still spending resources from somewhere else to build up the 'hole' you've left in Charisma.But it's only to one area of function, and an area that can be overcome by letting someone with better Charisma take over.
*if* the situation allows it. A bunch of magic hating barbarians aren't going to like it if the sorcerer talks to them, they want someone 'who can understand them' (the Cha 7 fighter).
If the cha 8 wizard is trying to get into a super secret wizard academy, the bard being his spokesman is going to hamper him, not help him.
NPCs that prefer to talk to women instead of men or vice versa...
Is the strength 7 wizard never required to make a Strength check? Or the Intelligence 5 paladin never the one to ponder the religious text? The DM shouldn't always single out the character's weakness, but should occasionally do so.
(Aside, I don't think of an 8 as 'dumping', it's part of the standard array.)
I can see mechanics to give charisma more 'oomph' (save modifiers, hero points, etc) but to say there's nothing in the game that keeps it from being a dump stat is mistaken.
Tangent! as to the rollplay canard I saw earlier.
To say that making a low cha character roll dice is 'rollplaying' is a false flag. Do you make players with high strength PCs lift weights to prove they can hit? Or a player of an 18 intelligence character prove he can comprehend quantum mechanics? Part of the 'role' part of 'role playing' is playing the character, not conviently ignoring their weaknesses. Bill Clinton could be playing the cha 6 character, and I'm going to ask for a diplomacy roll. If you're playing a dumb/foolish/boorish character as the numbers dictate you should be playing that character. For Boo to suddenly build complext plans, that's not 'roleplaying' that's 'metagaming'.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
But the use of Charisma as a number that then only influences things that do not need numbers.........well then why do you need a number?
I don't see any of my examples where a charisma check/skill check isn't needed. I see circumstances where the 'face' is going to be unavailable or less than helpful.
|
But the use of Charisma as a number that then only influences things that do not need numbers.........well then why do you need a number?I don't see any of my examples where a charisma check/skill check isn't needed. I see circumstances where the 'face' is going to be unavailable or less than helpful.
I know it's not what you mean, but I read the 'bard is not helpful in dealing with the wizards' as 'your Cha bonus is a penalty in this situation'.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I know it's not what you mean, but I read the 'bard is not helpful in dealing with the wizards' as 'your Cha bonus is a penalty in this situation'.But the use of Charisma as a number that then only influences things that do not need numbers.........well then why do you need a number?I don't see any of my examples where a charisma check/skill check isn't needed. I see circumstances where the 'face' is going to be unavailable or less than helpful.
That wasn't my intent. But if Waldorf the Wizard wants to have a 'professional' conversation with Saruman* on spell theory, I think having a -2 circumstance penalty on Billy Bard's attempts to set it up fits "If Wally wants this meeting, why doesn't he want to set it up himself?" And if it's a 'wizard to wizard' conversation, any attempts to use diplomacy on Saruman are going to have to come from Waldorf.
*
Personally, I think that low CHA comes with its own sets of issues. True, in a fighting-oriented game, CHA is just as useless as STR is in a no-combat game. But lets face it, pathfinder/D&D isn't ideal for combat-light games. Not because it can't suit the genre, but because its combat-heavy rules attract a combat heavy-audience, naturally...
My favorites solutions are:
Base action points on CHA, if action points are used.
However, this solution means that either high charisma character have access to A LOT of action points, or that there won't be much of a difference between average charisma and abysmally low charisma.
Swap Will save from WIS to CHA
I think that it this case, a feat should allow WIS to count toward Will save, if only as a "peg-leg feat" to facilitate conversion of statblocks.
'findel
|
|
That wasn't my intent. But if Waldorf the Wizard wants to have a 'professional' conversation with Saruman* on spell theory, I think having a -2 circumstance penalty on Billy Bard's attempts to set it up fits "If Wally wants this meeting, why doesn't he want to set it up himself?" And if it's a 'wizard to wizard' conversation, any attempts to use diplomacy on Saruman are going to have to come from Waldorf.
Okay, that makes more sense in that it's a roleplaying restriction than a metagame restriction.
*** spoiler omitted **
I can't deal with it! You and I can never speak again! I'm leaving the internets! ;-)
We actually loved working with charisma based mechanics so much that we made and playtested a pure charisma-skill character a while back. The PDF just came out last night (it will soon be up on Paizo.com too).
http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=86398
I just thought that it was relevant :D
A bunch of magic hating barbarians aren't going to like it if the sorcerer talks to them, they want someone 'who can understand them' (the Cha 7 fighter).
By the rules as written, that was hard-coded into 1e after UA. It's not in 3.X. In 3.X, it's been left to "referee's judgment," which is to say DM fiat.
In response to other posts, a stat that works off of DM fluff only is fine -- if there are other stats that do likewise, and if the pros and cons even out. But that's NOT the case -- rather, we have 5 stats with effects that are numerically hard-coded, and one that works by hand-waving only, but they're all lined up together and tied in a nice, shiny point-buy bow. And that's not good design.
What about the Charisma modifier impacting the base price of everything? So a 5 Charisma character would pay more to buy or create items, and a 20 Charisma character would pay less. The most important piece here is defining price alterations that don't get out of hand, as mid and high level Sorcerers could easily have Charisma above +10.
This doesn't affect anyone except the party's 'face', who is likely to do the buying and selling anyway.