Not true. The classes based around Charisma have a natural advantage over other classes in doing so, but they aren't the only ones doing it.
The only people trying to be Diplomancers have Charisma as a necessary stat.
Maybe not, they are just the only ones reasonably doing it because they will be increasing Charisma as well as the skill rank. And looking at the usual slough of "fixes" for "Charisma dump stat" presented in this thread, they are the only ones doing it in campaigns by those DMs.
You people want a "common man" fix for Charisma dump stating? Allow players to choose to use Charisma or Wisdom for Will saves.
If some twit dumps Strength
But what if someone who isn't a twit dumps strength. Or is everyone who doesn't play the way you play automatically a twit? ;-P
*make sure you are tracking encumbrance*. For everyone. Not just that person- but for the whole group. Coins are *heavy*. Clothes are heavy. That backpack with the tent, bedroll, and blanket in it? Yeah good luck with that 7 strength.
Well, the problem with this is: Those encumbrance rules are boring, annoying and not at all heroic. They make the game too much like everyday chores.
So off they go.
Know what else goes well with a 7 strength?
Shadows. Yup. They -suck-.
Now we get closer to someone that might not induce coma to people who are not totally into micromanaging.
Not to say "murder someone because they dumped a stat!" but don't neglect the stat either. Dumping anything should involve penalties.
And it usually does. But it should not be overdone, either.
You know what I think is funny? If you don't think about playing a character with a weakness, people will call you a munchkin or rollplayer, because only characters with a weakness or two have real depth.
But if you go and give your character a weakness, you'll be a rollplayer, too, a min-maxer and power-gamer, who "dumps" stats.
You can't really win.
So I don't even play the game.
I'm totally for choices and consequences, but against trying to find petty and annoying ways to make someone pay.
The shadow thing is a normal hazard. For everyone. Weak characters might fear it more, but it does make the whole thing more exciting.
Step 2:
Apply. All. Rules.
This sounds familiar.
How the person characterizes their super low Cha is really up to them but make sure they don't get away with "fluffing away" the penalty.
I'm completely behind that.
I just *love* people who get the lowest possible cha mod (for the extra points you get out of it) but then try to play the most suave, persuasive, outgoing, charming and diplomatic character they could, dominating conversations - and then complaining when they have to roll a diplomacy check.
Because they think mental stats should be ignored outside spellcasting so they get to min-max more.
Best part is the look on their faces when you tell them that in order to make that strength check their str 55 barbarian wants to make, they have to go outside and lift that heavy rock over their head. :D
"Well I just sit back and never talk to anyone" isn't going to cover a 3 charisma. A 9 maybe, an 8.. but the lower it gets the worse it gets.
Actually, I can see that. The lower the charisma, the more introverted you are. A cha 3 character is barely self-aware, too shy to look at your feet, and couldn't even think of talking to anyone.
Which makes it hard to get him into a party, of course.
Have the PC's invited to parties, etc.
Actually, low Cha characters won't be invited to parties. They won't sit next to the princess. They won't even be considered to any leadership position or military promotion.
The point is: No person should *always* be penalized for a dump stat
+100
Cha is only an effective dump stat if you allow the player to get away with never, ever having to roll a charisma check/skill check/etc.
Well, that can work. The flip-side is that they cannot hope to really succeed in such a check. And while they don't automatically have to make them, if they want to socialise, lie, or influence others, they'll have to make the check.
The game doesn't need to "be fixed". It needs players to be aware of the consequences of dumping their stats.
As I said above: Choices and their consequences. Some doors open, others close. Sometimes right in your face.
It's perfectly okay to create a character that's not good at everything, but if you get an ability score really low (which means going with an 8 or even 7 in Purchase so you get a lot of extra points - dice rolling methods just don't count because there you have to use what you rolled), you will be next to useless at some things.
And while GMs shouldn't make sure that everyone who has a low score suffers for this, he should also make sure not to shy away from such situations ("That guy has str 6, if I bring shadows he'll cry foul, better not to that" is exactly the wrong way to think. Use shadows if they make sense), and to make sure that the players won't cheat their way around their weaknesses (the most common way of this being the famous "we do diplomacy without skill checks" trick)
The best and easiest fix for Charisma dumping is enforcing the rules regarding Skills using Charisma.. Like Diplomacy and Handle Animal.
I'm not advocating being particularly punitive to players, just enforce the rules. Any Paizo AP, module, or PFS scenario is rife with Diplomacy checks and social situations. Once they don't get clues, information, or relationship opportunities, it starts to really hit home. Again, I am not advocating persecuting the players, but to just allow the dice and the modifiers to do their jobs... the rest will follow naturally.
Handle Animal is a good example. Don't allow players to start their Animal Companions with all the tricks they want. I realize it can be a drag to enforce some rules, but it those very rules that make Charisma work. Don't allow the Animal Companions to do tricks they don't know. Make the PCs spend time training and then make Handle Animal checks to learn new tricks. Though, they'll feel it with Diplomacy even harder.
The problem will self-correct itself.
Here is a parallel example: If you always tell players the value of artwork or gems and jewelry, they will not put points in Appraise.
A few thoughts:
1. Having a dump stat isn't the worst thing in the world. Over the course of a typical campaign, just about every character will take damage, make skill checks, make will saves, make fort saves, make reflex saves, make attack rolls, carry gear, etc. etc. etc. Further every character needs to do whatever his party-role does especially well. Having a stat that isn't completely useless, but is generally not vital, just helps give some cushion to characters who want to be really good at what they're good at, but not completely suck at everything else. Charisma is generally great for this because player's who have a high charisma know they (generally) aren't optimizing for combat and usually enjoy being the party face, and socially interacting with NPC's.
2. If excessive stat dumping bothers you, you can always use good old fashion dice rolling over point buy(heresy! heresy!). If you use the standard 4d6 drop the lowest and let people assign their stats, you reduce the likelihood of over-specialized characters, but still provide enough flexibility for people to be good at what they're good at.
3. Charisma is only as useless as the GM makes it(yay for giving the GM flexibility with the kind of game he runs). However, I agree that 3.x/pathfinder has done very few favors for DM's who want to run a social interaction heavy game, in terms of smoothly flowing rules structures. The leadership feat follower table is no substitute for an integrated system of capabilities and challenges for campaigns that focus on politics and organization building. Sure this stuff usually gets adressed, but usually as an after-thought in a supplement with some wacky rules mechanics that don't blend in well with the core rules. So DM's who want charisma to matter usually wind up having to resort to all sorts of homebrew, which I admit can be a pain, and makes player's nervous.
the problem isn't so much dumpstating itself.
Its when you start trying to "compensate" for the...
I agree a bit. Every opportunity they can find that actually makes sense to reward charisma, is aces with me. It does become a problem when they start forcing it, and as per my edit above- making a ninja need charisma is clearly forcing it.
The best and easiest fix for Charisma dumping is enforcing the rules regarding Skills using Charisma.. Like Diplomacy and Handle Animal.
I'm not advocating being particularly punitive to players, just enforce the rules. Any Paizo AP, module, or PFS scenario is rife with Diplomacy checks and social situations. Once they don't get clues, information, or relationship opportunities, it starts to really hit home. Again, I am not advocating persecuting the players, but to just allow the dice and the modifiers to do their jobs... the rest will follow naturally.
The problem I always have with these types of suggestions is that, I the GM, don't really want to manage a game of Accountants and Actuaries, where all sorts of fussy little details are constantly being monitored and invoked.
Plus, how many months and years have to transpire in real life for players to "get" the punitive micro-management and adjust their choices, all so that they can then succeed and the micro-management elements of the game? As a game master that is just completely unappealing.
This right here.
Just saying "the DM can do something about it" isn't really gonna work. Most DMs won't or can't put the time and energy into the micromanagment there..
Simply having a +1 or -1 to an attack roll however is far easier than figuring out the intricacies of interglacial diplomatic relations with the different races ect..
In 2nd edition, we played with cha and com. Cept both stats didn't really matter, took a ton of difficulty to get the DM to even realize we had the bonuses to those stats. Me and one other player (who was playing a female) basically could tag team social encounters cause someone was bound to fall in love with one of us. But our DM was completely incompetent in keeping track of these things. (Constantly had to answer the question on if she needed above or below the save value.)
The best and easiest fix for Charisma dumping is enforcing the rules regarding Skills using Charisma.. Like Diplomacy and Handle Animal.
I'm not advocating being particularly punitive to players, just enforce the rules. Any Paizo AP, module, or PFS scenario is rife with Diplomacy checks and social situations. Once they don't get clues, information, or relationship opportunities, it starts to really hit home. Again, I am not advocating persecuting the players, but to just allow the dice and the modifiers to do their jobs... the rest will follow naturally.
Handle Animal is a good example. Don't allow players to start their Animal Companions with all the tricks they want. I realize it can be a drag to enforce some rules, but it those very rules that make Charisma work. Don't allow the Animal Companions to do tricks they don't know. Make the PCs spend time training and then make Handle Animal checks to learn new tricks. Though, they'll feel it with Diplomacy even harder.
The problem will self-correct itself.
Here is a parallel example: If you always tell players the value of artwork or gems and jewelry, they will not put points in Appraise.
What rules? I don't see any rules that explicitly penalize players for dumping Charisma any more than Charisma being the skills' primary stat.
Mok and Ævux,
You misunderstand me if you think I actually enjoy enforcing those rules. I really don't. I spent about 10 years playing Amber Diceless, and other relatively freeform games, before going back to traditional RPGs like 3.5 and Pathfinder in the summer of 2007.
It was not in my nature to enforce Diplomacy or Handle Animal, and god knows.. Appraise.
However I was always battling players endlessly regarding the dumpstatting of Charisma. I tried setting arbitrary limits on dumpstatting. I didn't want to fire the players, because they were otherwise really good people to game with. However I faced a lot of complaints, and a lot of really good logical arguments about how arbitrary limits were unfair. That I was taking player autonomy away from them. I countered with "You don't role-playing like you have a Charisma of 6. How heroic can you be when turnips statistically have more charm than you?"
The solution finally came to down to enforcing the rules. And it self-corrected immediately.
Yeah, I hear what you're saying about not wanting to play Accountants and Actuaries. Neither do I frankly. I didn't tell you what I preferred. I told you what I found to work. If that doesn't not a good solution for you, I'm sorry. I was merely trying to contribute to the topic.
If some twit dumps StrengthBut what if someone who isn't a twit dumps strength. Or is everyone who doesn't play the way you play automatically a twit? ;-P
*make sure you are tracking encumbrance*. For everyone. Not just that person- but for the whole group. Coins are *heavy*. Clothes are heavy. That backpack with the tent, bedroll, and blanket in it? Yeah good luck with that 7 strength.
Well, the problem with this is: Those encumbrance rules are boring, annoying and not at all heroic. They make the game too much like everyday chores.
So off they go.
Know what else goes well with a 7 strength?
Shadows. Yup. They -suck-.Now we get closer to someone that might not induce coma to people who are not totally into micromanaging.
Not to say "murder someone because they dumped a stat!" but don't neglect the stat either. Dumping anything should involve penalties.And it usually does. But it should not be overdone, either.
You know what I think is funny? If you don't think about playing a character with a weakness, people will call you a munchkin or rollplayer, because only characters with a weakness or two have real depth.
But if you go and give your character a weakness, you'll be a rollplayer, too, a min-maxer and power-gamer, who "dumps" stats.
You can't really win.
So I don't even play the game.
I'm totally for choices and consequences, but against trying to find petty and annoying ways to make someone pay.
The shadow thing is a normal hazard. For everyone. Weak characters might fear it more, but it does make the whole thing more exciting.
Step 2:
Apply. All. Rules.This sounds familiar.
How the person characterizes their super low Cha is really up to them but make sure they don't get away with "fluffing away" the penalty.I'm completely behind that.
I just *love* people who get the lowest...
(threadjack!)
Lows vs High scores is actually the thing I hate about PB.in point buy- if I have a 7 I'm a munchkin. If i roll a 7 though then I can find a good way to Rp it and then I'm a good Rp'er.
Why is a 7 good to Rp in rolled but a munchkin in PB?
a 7 should be a 7 no matter how you achieved it- as long as you act according to that stat in the game- be it in strength or charisma.
I miss rolling stats :( It meant having a low score didn't necessarily mean you got an awesome score to off set it.(/threadjack!)
-S
Where is this in the RAW? I check the Pathfinder SRD, but I couldn't find it under the Ability Score section or the Diplomacy skill entry.Diplomacy is a skill. Charisma is an attribute. You can try to offset it but in actual game play you just can't. Your attributes control too many things- like what that initial attitude is from that stranger. Yanno- the guy you want to try and spend 1 minute with to use Diplomacy on. You walk in some place with a 7, a 6, a 5 Charisma.. and you are stuck before you ever get started.
If you follow the RAW.
Charisma is in the "Getting Started" section in the PRD. I think the chapter is also called that in the GMG.
Diplomacy is defined and explained in the Skills chapter both in the PRD and in the GMG.
-S
What rules? I don't see any rules that explicitly penalize players for dumping Charisma any more than Charisma being the skills' primary stat.
I am not sure I understand your question. I said that I did not advocate penalizing players for dumping Charisma, but rather to enforce the rules regarding skills that rely on the use of Charisma.
Which sounds like what you're saying as well.
I added that statement about not penalizing the players, so that my intent would not be misconstrued. Apparantly it did just the opposite.
If you're really unsure what rules I'm referring to, please see Diplomacy and Handle Animal for some examples. What I'm saying is that it helps to call for those rolls when appropriate, and to play out the consequences of success or failure as written.
Plus, how many months and years have to transpire in real life for players to "get" the punitive micro-management and adjust their choices, all so that they can then succeed and the micro-management elements of the game? As a game master that is just completely unappealing.
Specifically, I introduced this when I started a new campaign (Smugglers Siv). I let them play first to second level, and then invited them to readjust the scores. Don't get me wrong, no one raised their Charisma really high.. But a couple shifted a few points.
I'm not concerned about scores of 10 (that's fine), but it leveled off some of the 6's and 7's.
A war could start because the main hero dumped cha over other desirable combat traits, which would have not been needed in the first place if he/she had not dumped cha!
(threadjack!)
Lows vs High scores is actually the thing I hate about PB.
in point buy- if I have a 7 I'm a munchkin. If i roll a 7 though then I can find a good way to Rp it and then I'm a good Rp'er.
Why is a 7 good to Rp in rolled but a munchkin in PB?
a 7 should be a 7 no matter how you achieved it- as long as you act according to that stat in the game- be it in strength or charisma.I miss rolling stats :( It meant having a low score didn't necessarily mean you got an awesome score to off set it.(/threadjack!)
(continuing threadjack)
A 7 may be a 7, but I think people perceive a difference when one's rolled vs dumped for points. For me, it come down to being stuck with it and asking for it.If you roll it and tuck it somewhere it hurts less, you're making lemonade when the dice gave you lemons. You're not really being compensated anywhere for the bad roll. Other players may sympathize for your relative lack of luck and that means when a treasure trove comes up with a stat buff item for that particular stat, they may be more willing to give it to you to "even you up" with everyone else.
Contrast that, psychologically, with dumping a stat for points to stack elsewhere. You are being compensated for it by being buff somewhere else. You specifically chose to be sub-par in an area. Other players may be less sympathetic for any bad effects that happen as a result of the low score since you were "asking for it". <cue Nelson Muntz laugh>
That's, of course, all in the metagame, but it can affect the dynamic between the players at the table. And that will have an effect in game.
(/continuing threadjack)
Where before anyone could hire help, and just use their money and charisma to get good results, now everything was collapsed into one feat
You can't hire mercenaries and other personnel with 3e rules? Oh my god! I've been playing the game all wrong for 10 years now!
Unless, of course, you're wrong.
Yes, yes I think you are. :P
Leadership is basically you building a cult of personality, become a hero others look up to and will follow - not because of a contract you drew up and the payment they receive, but out of adoration, respect, worship, loyalty, fear, etc.
You can still tell some random blokes that you want to pay them gold for running around with you fighting against something. You can make charisma-based skill checks to make them honour the contract. It's not the same as leadership, but it's possible.
You can also have underlings because you have reached a position of power or made a claim of rulership - and defended that claim.
That's totally, absolutely possible. The game might not devote two whole chapters to the concept, but that doesn't mean the rules forbid it or make it impossible.
It's not that those things are impossible, it's that without sufficient sub-system support, the likelihood of their use is going to dramatically drop off. And without Charisma being baked in as a potent martial ability to have, it results in Charisma being left behind.
What a system emphasizes has a dramatic impact on the behavior that results from the players.
If you hand the Pathfinder Core book to a 14 year old today and tell them to make a character, it's possible that some bright kid will see the couple of details in the goods and services section of the book and think that it might just be easier to hire an army of mercenaries to go down in the tomb, but almost everyone else is just going to look at what the system emphasizes and rewards.
If you want Charisma to be valued by the bulk of players out there then you have to offer...
I strongly agree with you Mok. This was one of the big things I hoped that 4th Edition would tackle, and one thing which Pathfinder didn't address much either. In pathfinders defense though, I think this is the kind of problem that can only be solved by a new edition.
For me it's analogous to skills. In 1st edition, rogues had special abilities like open lock and sneak. No one else had skills by default. This was fine at first for most people's limited dungeon centric play. But eventually through playing more and more creative situations, people started needing a reliable subsystem for skills. This was around second edition, and they presented some optional rules for minor skills, but it was really added on as afterthought. By late second addition it was pretty standard to play with these secondary skills but the rules were not very well integrated with the rest of the system(anybody remember blindfight?). So 3rd edition dazzled us by integrating skills into the fabric of the system, and suddenly things like bluff checks and knowledge(arcana) started being a standard part of gameplay. You could still easily run a hack-slash game where that stuff didn't matter much, but you could just as easily take the same game with the same characters out of the dungeon and put them in a crowded city market where they have to haggle, appraise, and watchout for pickpockets. Social subsystems (and by extension- the inherent importance of charisma) are the next frontier. We get powerful characters who are able to interact with the world in a wide variety of ways, and it's natural that eventually characters want to gain political power, and get tangible benefits from underlings. Why does you're level 17 cleric give a crap about squishing the big bad at the bottom level of some dungeon. He's on a first name basis with god. He wants to be the pope. Right now when these situation come up, DM's have to turn to subsystems that have been tacked on after-the-fact, and leave way too much homebrewing onus on the DM.
What is the goal of bringing this up?
a) Make a Fighter with Cha 18 and Str 8 as good as a fighter with Str 18 and Cha 8
b) Encourage everyone to put a 12 in everything regardless of class
If you want to make rogues/fighters/barbarians put more emphasis into Charisma, why not also encourage sorcerers/wizards to increase their Strength? Certain classes already rely on Charisma (Paladins/Bards and clerics to a lesser extent), so if you are trying to make Charisma more desirable to all classes, you must also ensure that Strength is desirable to all classes.
The problem is that Pathfinder is a predominately combat oriented rules system. It has a chapter devoted to nothing but combat, but other chapters have significant impact on combat as well (classes, equipment, spells, feats). Social interaction is a small part of the game and is essentially contained within a couple of subsections of chapters (mostly Skills).
If you want to make Charisma more important, develop a social interaction system that is more complex (say something 1/2 as complicated as combat is now).
Flower arranging sounds like a very superfluous skill... unless you're playing a game set in a Japanese court style setting at which point it's going to give you access to a whole slew of social benefits. If you want to make Charisma more important, social interaction has to be increased in importance. In a hack and slash style game, you don't need Diplomacy if you can cast Speak with Dead.
What is the goal of bringing this up?
1) Make a Fighter with Cha 18 and Str 8 as good as a fighter with Str 18 and Cha 8?
2) Encourage everyone to put a 12 in everything?
3) Educate people on why Cha is a bad stat and they should avoid it?
More of 3... but really its 4) Cha is lacking a real mechanic tied to it that everyone can benefit from. Skills, class abilities and racial abilties only work so long as someone is using those things (Skills only work when someone wants to get the greatest amount of bonus)
Meanwhile most other stats have a constant use. (int is the second one if you don't use skills)
Wizards/Sorcs run into problems with low str often..
Carrying capacity, climbing the rope, ran out of spells..
As I tend to say in all the Charisma Dumpers Must Die threads:
Charisma 7 = 3 from average.
Those who get all bent out of shape that such characters should be horribly offenses to all that is social and whatnot, I ask: Is 14 super-mega-awesome? Does Cha16 not have to roll skills any more, since he is twice as far from average as 7? Is Cha19 the threshold where people just offer you stuff in the street?
It is not the social equivalent of animal intelligence. It is "Sheltered", "Withdrawn" and "Introvert" level. It is someone with a stutter. It is _not_ the nose-picking, no-hygiene, loudmouth borderline retard that likes to smell girls he meets on the street.
What is the goal of bringing this up?
a) Make a Fighter with Cha 18 and Str 8 as good as a fighter with Str 18 and Cha 8
b) Encourage everyone to put a 12 in everything regardless of classIf you want to make rogues/fighters/barbarians put more emphasis into Charisma, why not also encourage sorcerers/wizards to increase their Strength? Certain classes already rely on Charisma (Paladins/Bards and clerics to a lesser extent), so if you are trying to make Charisma more desirable to all classes, you must also ensure that Strength is desirable to all classes.
The problem is that Pathfinder is a predominately combat oriented rules system. It has a chapter devoted to nothing but combat, but other chapters have significant impact on combat as well (classes, equipment, spells, feats). Social interaction is a small part of the game and is essentially contained within a couple of subsections of chapters (mostly Skills).
If you want to make Charisma more important, develop a social interaction system that is more complex (say something 1/2 as complicated as combat is now).
Flower arranging sounds like a very superfluous skill... unless you're playing a game set in a Japanese court style setting at which point it's going to give you access to a whole slew of social benefits. If you want to make Charisma more important, social interaction has to be increased in importance. In a hack and slash style game, you don't need Diplomacy if you can cast Speak with Dead.
While I agree with your general point, that as the game stands, it's totally okay for a fighter to dump charisma, and we should all be comfortable it. Further, I like the way the game currently stands, but that doesn't mean I don't expect it to improve.
While pathfinder is still predominantly combat oriented, I'd say that it is a step in the direction of being less combat oriented (lumping it in with 3.X). It's a happy compromise system that gives lots of good mechanics for non combat scenarios, and it is the beneficiary of years and years of people getting farther and farther from standard hack & slash. Diplomacy focused gameplay is not nearly as remote and over specialized as japanese floral arangements, and as the years go by it becomes more and more a basic part of the game. I think this is a valuable conversation to have when creating a new class.
It drives me bonkers that Cha is billed as an "equal stat" and yet, mechanically, has no game-play penalty for dumping (except for bards and sorcerers). It also drives me bonkers that Dex is billed as an "equal stat" and yet, mechanically, has so many game-play benefits that it's hard to list them all. Some people "think it's fine," and they should ignore this, but for those equally annoyed at this blatant imbalance, I've done the following:
|
I'm not sure why a DM taking note of a character's (as opposed to the controlling player's) Charisma requires 'micromanagement'?
Average Charisma - NPCs treat you with average respect; high Charisma - NPCs treat you with a lot of respect; low Charisma - NPCs treat you badly... kinda' like in the real world. No systems required beyond taking note of the character's Ability Scores.
Do you picture your character like a movie action star? Yes? Then he doesn't have a low Charisma...
It doesn't take a huge effort to have NPCs act in a more polite manner towards high Charisma characters, and more insulting and dismissive towards low Charisma characters - just basic roleplaying. That's not to say the DM has lynch mobs form to run the low Charisma guy out of town... just that when NPCs initially meet the character the character's Charisma score is there as the base guideline as to how the NPCs should react - do they get a polite and enthusiastic, 'What can I do for you today, Sir?', or a surly, 'What do you want?': same basic question, just a different attitude.
Plus, if you have the highest Charisma in the party, you're the guy who gets to kiss the girl... (or guy... whatever floats your particular boat...). ;)
Charisma is about style over substance - if all you're interested in for your character is substance, and not style, then it's obviously not an important Ability Score... otherwise it is.
Charisma is about style over substance - if all you're interested in for your character is substance, and not style, then it's obviously not an important Ability Score... otherwise it is.
That's just the thing -- "separate but equal" didn't work in terms of racial integration, and equally doesn't sit well with many gamers. If you have five (5) mechanical stats and one (1) flavor stat, pretending that you have six equal stats is transparently disengenuous. Just reduce the point buy scale, have it apply to the 1st five stats, and let everyone pick their charisma, or roll for it.
|
|
But... Charisma does have mechanics associated with it... just as all the other Ability Scores have flavour and roleplay aspects associated with them as well.
Mechanically, Charisma is easily the most powerful Ability Score in the game, if you design a character that way and you don't have a DM that simply vetos away your use of the interaction rules to talk your way past a majority of encounters. But that's not really the point, so much as 'how do you picture your character, and how does the game world picture your character?' should define your character's Ability Scores - a stylish character needs Charisma to be stylish just as much as a strong character needs Strength to be strong.
You could just as easily throw out Intelligence as an Ability Score (your character is now exactly as intelligent as you, the player, are) and replace Wisdom with a simple perception mechanic - only preserving those things which need in-game simulation mechanics... but then you're playing a miniatures wargame, and not an RPG... or, at least, not an RPG which gives you the freedom to play characters which are different from you in every way.
Sometimes it's nice to play a dim-witted fighter... sometimes it's nice to play a guy who always gets the girl...
Charisma is about style over substance - if all you're interested in for your character is substance, and not style, then it's obviously not an important Ability Score... otherwise it is.That's just the thing -- "separate but equal" didn't work in terms of racial integration, and equally doesn't sit well with many gamers. If you have five (5) mechanical stats and one (1) flavor stat, pretending that you have six equal stats is transparently disengenuous. Just reduce the point buy scale, have it apply to the 1st five stats, and let everyone pick their charisma, or roll for it.
I totally agree with this point.
Charisma only has fluff if you ignore RAW and handwaive the score away.
If you treat it as the social interaction attribute that it is designed to be (i.e. have people treat/react to you as your score indicates) then there is no imbalance: folks who trash it get trashed, folks who buff it get buffed and folks with mediocre scores get treated like the mass bulk of "humanity".
Treat it like the red-headed stepchild of ability scores and its no wonder PC's are ditching it left and right. You have to give it the love (and hate) any ability score requires.
If a PC ditches strength do you ignore encumbrance? Do you never make the guy use the climb skill? The swim skill?
if they ditch wisdom do you turn Will saves onto other people so he won't fail them?
if he ditches dex will you angle reflex saves at someone else so he doesn't fail them?
if he ditches con will he never get hurt so it doesn't impact him?
Of course you don't. Any player who ditches any ability does so with the knowledge *and the expectation* that it will be a detriment to his character. If the DM isn't imposing the penalty then what do you expect to happen? If you do avoid the penalty then *of course* folks will ditch the attribute. Why not? You are avoiding it- why shouldn't they?!
If you want your PC's to respect the ability score then You need to respect it and give it the attention it deserves.
If you do not apply the in-game penalty for those who ditch Charisma then it is your fault not the players that it is an easy dump stat.
-S
|
|
When it comes down to it, the point of the game is action and combat, at least that is what it is for 99% of the gamers I've played with for 30 years. The chit chat between fights is just how you contextualize the action.
If you want to be suave while you talk, be suave. If you want to be gruff, be gruff. Whatever flavored spin you put on it, the aim is to get you to the next combat anyways, so why entangle that flavor with the mathematical underpinnings of the action mechanics.
For the last 11 years of 3.0+ D&D, despite there being mechanical advantages to talking, most people don't take advantage of it, and I'm comfortable saying that at least 90% of the gamers I've played with don't bother role-playing at all anyway. It's just a contextualized boardgame. There are a handful of people that make some attempt at funny voices or other "acting" and everyone else is just in meta-game-lala-land.
While that's fine and all, the game isn't (and shouldn't be) just written for you and your friends, and their gaming style, any more than it's written just for me and my friends and our gaming style. We happen to play role-play heavy games - the actions scenes are only fun if the role-play context is there: otherwise you're rolling a lot of dice for no good reason... In my experience 100% of gamers role-play - because that's the sort of people I play with.
The point being, the game supports both styles of play (and many more besides) as it should. Taking away something because you don't happen to use it isn't going to be a good thing for the general appeal of the game to a wide gaming audience.
IMHO, natch...
Charisma only has fluff if you ignore RAW and handwaive the score away. ..And other woteworthy remarks...
I have to concur with Selgard here. As I said above, I don't always like having to use Social Game Mechanics, but that is why the attribute is in the game. If they're not utilized, then Charisma really has no purpose. And that's why it gets dumped.
Certainly rewiring Charisma into the saving roll system will make it very important. That is a valid solution. However you don't necessarily have to go that extent. The ability score has a reason to exist, and if that is observed, players will consider investing in it, or at least not dumping it.
We're conditioned to remember the combat game mechanics. Social game mechanics are not all that hard, they just require some practice like anything.
Charisma only has fluff if you ignore RAW and handwaive the score away.
If social interaction were governed strictly by Charisma, you'd be right. But it's not; per the rules, it's governed by a few skills, which in turn are influenced primarily by number of skill ranks, and only secondarily by Charisma (Charisma can even be tertiary, depending on the bonus/penalty magnitude vs. the class skill and/or any feat bonuses). DM fiat regarding skewing initial attitudes is not RAW.
And, unlike every single one of the other 5 stats, Charisma by the RAW has no uses outside of mofiying some skill bonuses -- unless your character is one of the few classes that were made Cha-dependent solely, it would seem, as a last-ditch effort to pretend that it's equal to the other stats.
|
It drives me bonkers that Cha is billed as an "equal stat" and yet, mechanically, has no game-play penalty for dumping (except for bards and sorcerers). It also drives me bonkers that Dex is billed as an "equal stat" and yet, mechanically, has so many game-play benefits that it's hard to list them all. Some people "think it's fine," and they should ignore this, but for those equally annoyed at this blatant imbalance, I've done the following:
I stole Will saves from Wis and gave them to Cha. Now Cha has an actual numerical use other than "DM fiat."
I stole ranged attacks from Dex and gave them to Wis. Along with Perception being the Wis-based Pathfinder "super-skill," that's a lot of incentive not to dump Wis.
The above also reduces the overabundance of uses for Dex.
Neat ideas.
I was thinking some time back that it might have been an interesting system tweak to have saving throws based of one primary attribute *or* one secondary attribute, at a reduced effect.
Half of your Cha modifier would count for your Will save, *if* that number was higher than the modifier you would have gotten from your Wisdom score. (So a Wis 10, Cha 18 Sorcerer would get half of his +4 Cha modifier, +2, to his Will saves, instead of the +0 from his Wisdom 10.)
The same would apply to Intelligence and Reflex saves (Int 20, Dex 12 Wizard would get to add half of his Int mod (rounded down to +2), instead of the +1 he would have gotten for his Dex 12, to his Reflex save.
And the same for Strength and Fortitude saves. A Str 39 Storm Giant would use half his Str mod of 14 (+7) instead of the +6 he'd get for Fort saves from his 23 Con.
This would obviously be nicer for Bards or Sorcerers (high Cha but not necessarily high Wis), or Wizards (high Int, not necessarily high Dex) than most other classes, but could still have some use for corner-case characters, like the high Str, weak Con elven Barbarian.
Other thoughts;
*Kingmaker is a great equalizer for Cha dumpage. Six of the twelve leadership roles can function on Charisma.
*If Clerics were not >> to Favored Souls / Oracles and Wizards were not >> to Sorcerers, Charisma might be taken more seriously. With the exception of the Bard, Cha-based classes pretty much get pwned in their own niche by Int or Wis-based classes.
*If the Diplomacy rules were better (I like the rules Rich Burlew came up with at Giant in the Playground, but can't link to them, due to an exponentially frustrating Search feature over there), that might help.
*If the Intimidate rules didn't require special feats and / or class abilities to be useful, again, that might help.
*Handle Animal is already good enough, like a tiny little version of the Leadership feat that costs money, time and skill ranks.
in point buy- if I have a 7 I'm a munchkin. If i roll a 7 though then I can find a good way to Rp it and then I'm a good Rp'er.
If you get a 7 as a roleplaying opportunity and pull it off properly, I'll call you a good roleplayer.
If you get a 7 in charisma (and play a dwarf or other race with charisma penalty to boot) and then play as if the character had an 18 in charisma, and expect your speeches will have the same result as an 18 in charisma - because *you* (as opposed to your character) is being so persuasive and charming, you're a munchkin.
That's the crux of the matter.
I miss rolling stats :( It meant having a low score didn't necessarily mean you got an awesome score to off set it.(/threadjack!)
It meant people being stuck with crappy rolls, while others had incredible luck and got mega-awesome rolls - with no low score to even things out. Or sometimes it meant people inventing ever more elaborate rolling mechanisms (you roll 4 or more dice and discard the lowest, you always reroll 1s, you get to roll 12 stats and pick those you want, you get to roll three complete sets and choose the one you prefer, you get to reroll if your results aren't good enough......) designed to make it possible to have really over-the-top stats but with little or no risk of getting bad ones.
No, I don't miss rolling the dice at all.
Other thoughts
Those are all excellent points that, I think, bear taking seriously.
P.S. If you find those Diplomacy rules, I'd be interested in looking at them. The main problem with Diplomacy as it is is the fact that the d20 random number generator can't keep up with the dichotomy of bonuses -- high-Cha Diplomancers always win, and Cha-dump-stat everyone else always fails. Having an initial reaction (determined through some other method also subject to character build) vs. scaling DCs to change that (with subsequent Diplomacy) might be a good way to address that.|
|
P.S. If you find those Diplomacy rules, I'd be interested in looking at them.
Found 'em! Go go, google search!
|
Paladin, Bard, or Sorcerer. Where is your god now?
That said, who cares if a rogue dumps one of his stats? Every class has at least one, even the stat-heavy Paladin will drop his wisdom because his saves are good, and he doesn't have anything particularly useful as a class skill that also needs wisdom. Paladins will also drop Int, unless they are weird, like the ones I build.
Did you mean this?
http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/advanced-rules/diplomacy.html
Justin is a genius by the way...
Frankly, I think both versions of these alternate rules are messed up. Diplomacy is a troublesome skill not because of simple 3.5 design error, but because it's taking on a massively complex and dynamic aspect of human life, and trying to boil it down to a single role.
First off, I doubt the author has anything remotely similar to sales experience. I can tell you that when you are negotiating a contract with a total stranger and negotiating one with even a minor acquaintance, let alone someone you've actually done business with before like the blacksmith he mentioned, the success ratio goes up a lot more than +2. I have seen it demonstrated in real life that a deal is usually about 10 times as likely to succeed if you have even a vague acquaintance with the person. Additionally, they've just shifted the problem of "what modifier do I use" to "how should I characterize their relationship with the PC?"
Secondly, this alternate system is far too mechanical in it's aims. By trying to build in a level/hd mechanic, they are trying to reduce it to a spell-like effect. The very nature of human influence is the powerful ability to reach across boundaries that brute force or fire power cannot. Just because you are massively successful in a given sphere like combat or athleticism, it doesn't make you any less susceptible to manipulation. Diplomacy is supposed to be a game changing force than can bypass things like hit points and spells per day.
I do like the idea of structuring diplomacy attempts as proposals, because usually if you are making a diplomacy check, you are trying to get something fairly specific. But I don't think that should be the extent of the skill. Building a relationship with a PC shouldn't be arbitrary and automatic, but should also require skill and effort. Further, sometimes diplomacy should act as a saving throw, to see if you manage a faux pas, or suffer negative social consequences.
The current system isn't perfect, or intuitive, but those proposed alternatives don't attempt solve the problems, but instead just reduce applications of the skill.
Paladin, Bard, or Sorcerer. Where is your god now?
That said, who cares if a rogue dumps one of his stats? Every class has at least one, even the stat-heavy Paladin will drop his wisdom because his saves are good, and he doesn't have anything particularly useful as a class skill that also needs wisdom. Paladins will also drop Int, unless they are weird, like the ones I build.
Class features do not equate stat importance, unless EVERY class has to take that stat for class features.
The stat heavy pally truthfully lost out on more will saves and skill points by dropping both of those.
And who cares? Apparently paizo does, from what i've been told. But they need to make the start itself useful in combat and more than "well if the DM is reallly good he can pull off..."
Off topic, mildly, but when it used to work, The Barcode PC Builder was my preferred alternative to roll and take. At some point time (and code) marched on, and I've tied fixing it but my code-fu is miserably insufficient to the task.
If someone could take a look at the create.php from the project itself and figure out what was broken, I'd be eternally grateful, unto the point of running a game.
To make CH more useful, how about a sort of "Rule of Cool" where a PC (or major NPC) gets to make one reroll per day but has to use their CHA bonus instead of the normal ability bonus
If social interaction were governed strictly by Charisma, you'd be right. But it's not; per the rules, it's governed by a few skills, which in turn are influenced primarily by number of skill ranks, and only secondarily by Charisma (Charisma can even be tertiary, depending on the bonus/penalty magnitude vs. the class skill and/or any feat bonuses). DM fiat regarding skewing initial attitudes is not RAW.
And, unlike every single one of the other 5 stats, Charisma by the RAW has no uses outside of mofiying some skill bonuses -- unless your character is one of the few classes that were made Cha-dependent solely, it would seem, as a last-ditch effort to pretend that it's equal to the other stats.
And aside from the bonus skill points, this isn't any different from Intelligence. And if you're the type of character who invests in leadership, a good Charisma can pay pretty big dividends compared to a couple of points of Intelligence bonus.
So I'm not really seeing much to the separate but equal with respect to Charisma alone. Intelligence isn't much better when you compare to, say, Dexterity.
And aside from the bonus skill points, this isn't any different from Intelligence... Intelligence isn't much better when you compare to, say, Dexterity.
Those bonus skill points nicely supersede any benefits of Charisma for everyone except the rogue (who doesn't need Int to get a bucketful of skills) -- or they can be used for other things entirely, so that Int is a lot more versatile than Cha.
But, yes, for a lot of characters, Int is not as useful as Dex -- which, again, I see as a design flaw: If attributes are grossly unbalanced, they should not be treated as being equal. A point-buy system under which Dex is the most expensive, Int less so, and Cha being very cheap, would in fact be a more reasonable one.
Regarding Dex specifically, hopefully we all agree that it's a "super-stat" even among the others. That's why I've recommended stripping ranged attacks from Dex and handing them to Wis (to represent Wis being mental focus and awareness), then giving Will saves to Cha (so that Charisma represents force of personality). In other words, "spreading the love" a bit among the six attributes, to justify their supposedly equal values.
|
|
Different 'point buy' values for different Ability Scores isn't a bad idea... although you open the floor to a different type of min-maxing, and start to run into issues with effects which target Ability Scores (e.g. if Dexterity if more 'expensive' than Strength, should Dexterity draining spells drain less of the Ability Score than Strength draining spells to keep from penalising the guy who spent points in the 'costly' Dexterity Ability Score?).
The Hero system is one RPG system which does this... but then again it needs a load of extra rules besides assigning a value to each Ability Score to pull off without too much potential for abuse. Even then it doesn't take too long for some bright spark to twig to the fact that a 60 Presence gives a 12d6 Presence Attack... which stops most fights dead... at dirt cheap cost...
I am opposed to fixing it because I do not think it is broken as written.
However, it *is* true that different classes put different weights on different ability scores. The easiest way to fix it is actually to have different PB values for the different classes and specs.
If you are a "one score" class then that one score should be danged expensive to take compared to the others. If you are a "two score" class then those two should be fairly expensive compared to the rest. And so on.
Such that: Pure casters will find it very expensive to have one super stat at the expense of everything else. An archer -for example- would have a slightly easier time moderating both dex and strength. A paladin or monk (who need nearly all the stats) would find it abit easier to have an effective, interesting character even at the lower point buys.
As the game stands now the pure casters win even on the basic level because they can afford to dump all into their primary attrib and use the left overs for con. If you have a high PB they can spread some points around abit but a 20 int at level 1 is far from uncommon.
(ant haul is a good spell but dang it shouldn't be 2h/level at level 1!)
The real problem isn't "this class gets a dump stat" it is "this class has 1 effective dump stat and That class has three effective dumpstats".
-S