Dark Heresy has different point costs for ability scores depending on your class, but that's one game that doesn't allow multiclassing.
As someone who rolls stats I don't encounter as much of an issue with regard to dump stats. The fact is that the "problem" with them is inherent in the way that the point buy system is set up. It actively encourages and outright rewards gutting stats non-essential to your character. This has made me realize that the systems with point buy that I do like all start at minimum and only allow you to add to a stat.
To counteract this one could make the system penalize gutting a stat to a similar degree that it currently rewards it. This results in a complex balancing act. One could also re-engineer the point buy system so that it only adds (no gutting of stats). Also complex. Personally, I'm sticking with my dice. I find it an easier solution that works well enough for me. For those of you who insist on point buy, I wish you luck.
Kirth - I like where you are going with moving ranged attacks Wis and Will Saves to Cha. I am seriously considering adding that to my house rules.
With regard to the diplomacy rules, the only real issue I see with them is the mostly static DCs. Target Hit Dice really should be a consideration and would make the extra points from Cha more desirable to boost diplomacy checks. Additionally they should include a modifier for benefits to the target similar to the ones for risk. (seriously, +10 to the DC if the target risks punishment but no modifier if the target is likely to benefit?)
Kirth has the right idea I think. For most characters, Cha only effects social interactions. The problem with this is that this is the only part of the game mechanics that can be role-played instead of roll-played. If you want to make Cha more important to characters you need to make it something that is used more in the roll-play mechanics. But it has to be done across the board, not just for certain classes. Otherwise you just continue the existing trend of Cha only being important to characters with a class feature keyed off of it and a dump stat for everyone else.
Side note to the...
Oh your right. Forgot how much crazy stuff dex gave you. And I agree 100%. If paizo wants to make cha more releveant, they need to do something across the board, like how kirth has it.
You know.. CHA could effect your Initiative.. If you have an outgoing personality, you are more likely to act to things than a person who has no personality.
Sure, you aren't physically faster, but that's reflex save.
Just don't use the gain points for taking negative score point buy system.
7 0
8 0
9 0
10 0
11 1
12 2
13 3
14 5
15 7
16 10
17 13
18 17
Problem solved. No more dump stat. Continue on.
Just don't use the gain points for taking negative score point buy system.
7 0
8 0
9 0
10 0
11 1
12 2
13 3
14 5
15 7
16 10
17 13
18 17Problem solved. No more dump stat. Continue on.
Um..
No you didn't solve the problem. All you did was put the "dump stat" maximum at 10. A 10 dump stat, is still a dump stat.
A dump stat is when you lower as much as possible one stat to gain a benefit to another stat. Removing the ability to do it, there no longer becomes a dump stat. If you don't need CHA you intentionally lower it to raise another stat. If you can't intentionally lower a stat to gain a benefit to another stat, there is no longer dump stats.
The issue is that you're gaining +4 to another stat by dumping CHA down to 7. If you can't gain the +4 to another stat, you're not dumping anything. Not raising a stat is not making it a dump stat.
Seems to me the "problem" isn't Charisma, but rather the min/max playstyle.
This.
In the games I am involved with, as player and a GM, CHA matters, dump at own risk.
YMMV.
How about 'Both'? Like so many social conflicts, it's not a binary thing.
Yes it is, clear as the day is long - GM v Ford.
True believers think theirs is the 'One True God'.
So my flavour is the right one :)
No you didn't solve the problem. All you did was put the "dump stat" maximum at 10. A 10 dump stat, is still a dump stat.
What? A 10 is average for a human being. Not every character is above-average in everything. Sometimes, they're even below-average.
I think the fix you need is the 18d1 dice rolling method. Or the 102 point purchase.
Actually those of us who roll stats will refer to the stat we assign the lowest roll to as a dump stat (where you dump the bad roll). The fact that you can deliberately gut a stat in point buy is why it has become such an issue. There is a bit of a difference between your dump stat being where you assign your lowest roll and a stat you deliberately lowered as much as possible for the points, but both are considered dump stats as they are deliberately chosen to be your lowest stat.
Well, you can't expect that someone will put his worst roll into the attribute he needs the most.
For those who use Purchase or other deterministic systems and think that deliberately getting the lowest possible value in a "neglegible" stat in order to get extra points (as opposed to wanting the character to have an obvious weakness) is going to be a problem in your games, just remove that option.
State that nobody can go beyond 10 (before racial modifiers) since the heroes are supposed to be heroic.
A dump stat is when you lower as much as possible one stat to gain a benefit to another stat. Removing the ability to do it, there no longer becomes a dump stat. If you don't need CHA you intentionally lower it to raise another stat. If you can't intentionally lower a stat to gain a benefit to another stat, there is no longer dump stats.
The issue is that you're gaining +4 to another stat by dumping CHA down to 7. If you can't gain the +4 to another stat, you're not dumping anything. Not raising a stat is not making it a dump stat.
You intentionally kept it at 10. When you change one thing, in this case the effect of dumping a stat, it doesn't mean that the term dumpstat would become eteched into stone as lowering it below 10.
It means that along with the change you had prescribed terminology would end up changing as well.
for example 55 used to be fast. There was a song infact about how fast 55 was. But cars got faster, roads got better and the speed limit increased. 55 is no longer fast. Now people look at 100-200mph as a fast in a car, perhaps even more.
The issue actually is that while people do dump stating, some people complain about it. (I'm not actually one of those people..)
Then Paizo is like "We need to make Cha more relevant because classes like Rogues and fightes just dump cha, they have absolutly no reason to keep it."
So instead of fixing the stat, they are making more classes cha based just to try and make CHA more important. However unless they make every class cha based, making a class any other stat based ruins these efforts.
CHA mechanically has very little of any effect. Yes, I know, you can, as a DM do stuff. But not every DM can or will want to do that. It is much easier to say, "No you cannot carry that because you don't have the str" than it is to say "No you cannot do that, your character is butt ugly"
Why?
Because there is an actual mechanically difference between 10 str and 12 str. Its written right there in the adventuring rules on carrying capacity.
What does a character look like from 10 cha or 12 cha? How does he act? Not how you would make a character act, but how does he mechanically act, look like, or anything like that? No where in the book is it written "If you have 18 cha, you must act like a flamboyant individual"
But it is written in the book "if you have 18 str, you can carry up to this amount of stuff." Same with every single stat.
This is the actual problem here.
Now If Dex was to take a slight hit in it's abilities.. (Come on really? Initiative, ac, ranged attacks, reflex saves?) And you move initiative to cha, now cha has something certifiable in it.
Thus even if the fighter wants to dump cha, he loses out on initiative bonus, which would certianly make said fighter sad as he keeps losing initiative to outgoing personality types.
(My beef is that instead of doing something like that, they keep trying to apply bandages on one side, while using a pump to blow water though on the other side.)
In the games I am involved with, as player and a GM, CHA matters, dump at own risk.
I just feel like "sure, there isn't enough in the actual rules to make this fair, but I can fiat it" is the ultimate sign of giving up when it comes to trying to balance a game.
It's like wearing sweatpants out for normal social functions. You stopped trying and everyone knows it.
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.
Sure -- Leadership is one of the only good mechanical arguments in the core rules for most kinds of characters (i.e., the ones without important class features tied to Charisma) to avoid dumping Charisma.
Unfortunately (and not without good reason), it's also the most commonly banned core feat by a wide margin, so while I agree with you I'd rather we didn't have to hang almost all of the value of the stat on that.
I just feel like "sure, there isn't enough in the actual rules to make this fair, but I can fiat it" is the ultimate sign of giving up when it comes to trying to balance a game.
See, we tend to play games where there is more to it than simply being a Table-Top MMO Dungeon bash. If that's all you are doing then dump the CHA stat and have a cool time, we did that when i was a teenager too.
If your games get to the point of having layers of 'political' intrigue etc, then CHA is the sort of stat that will get you places. Battles aren't always won with swords.
If you have to raise 'GM Fiat' as the only response to 'actual storyline involved' then its a sure sign you are in the wrong game.
Personally I'd be bored stiff in playing a tactical mini's game.
See, we tend to play games where there is more to it than simply being a Table-Top MMO Dungeon bash. If that's all you are doing then dump the CHA stat and have a cool time, we did that when i was a teenager too.
If your games get to the point of having layers of 'political' intrigue etc, then CHA is the sort of stat that will get you places. Battles aren't always won with swords.
If you have to raise 'GM Fiat' as the only response to 'actual storyline involved' then its a sure sign you are in the wrong game.
Personally I'd be bored stiff in playing a tactical mini's game.
If you can't basically do as well in your game by placing skill points in the Charisma skills, then yes, that's ignoring the rules in favor of fiat.
No amount of dressing that up as an "adult" game and those who disagree as teenagers can fool people with basic reasoning skills into thinking otherwise.
If you can't basically do as well in your game by placing skill points in the Charisma skills, then yes, that's ignoring the rules in favor of fiat.
I see this line bandied around quite a lot, and all I can say is please go right ahead and show me where players who dumpstat CHA then go and spend their limited Skill point resources trying to 'fix up' their CHA skills. They didn't see value in the Stat, so it follows they didn't see value in the underlying skills.
So, yes it IS technically possible to do.
I just haven't ever seen it done... not a once... and neither have you, and you know it.
|
D&D's had a Charisma stat since the beginning, but never had a robust (or even workable) set of interaction rules to make it meaningful.
GURPS trimmed it down to Str, Dex, Int and Con (well, IQ and HT, but same dealio), saving Charisma for an advantage that some could purchase, if they wanted, so that it wasn't a 'stat' that could be 'dumped.'
Wisdom and Charisma both serve as different sorts of 'force of personality' scores, and I think that there just isn't enough 'stuff' to spread around to make them both viable.
If Wisdom was 'Insight' and limited to Perception checks (and Perception was no longer a skill at all) and some mystical / divine spellcasting, and Charisma was 'Presence' and had the Will save modifier and useful for force of personality / reality is my toy spellcasting, that might be one way to make the two attributes relevant, but instead, Wisdom does double duty and Charisma is only important to social interactions rules, of which the game pays only marginal heed.
If Dex really needs to have something snatched away from it, tossing Initiative into the Wisdom / Insight attribute as well could help balance that out a bit more (since limiting Wisdom to just perception checks might make it sub-par).
I personally loathe 'dumping' attributes below 10. I want to play someone who is at least marginally competent, not a wimp, not a coward, not a klutz, not a dimwit and not someone with the social graces of a drunk Mel Gibson.
While the idea of making negative attributes not worth negative points would work for me, I'm not prepared to inflict that house rule on my players, whose tastes are not always 100% aligned with my own. I'm not terribly adversarial, as a GM, so I wouldn't deliberately pick on PCs who dumped this attribute or that, but I do use encumbrance rules, and the Str 6 Gnome is gonna find that she's earned those piddly two points she shaved that way. Similarly, in deciding NPC reactions, I keep track of who has above average and below average Charisma scores on my little cheat sheets, and the suave PC is more likely to get the better offers or more respectful treatment than the booger-eaters.
Plus, a hold-over from watching too much Monty Python, our games have always had haggling as an option when it comes to buying and selling. Flat 100% cost for buying, 50% value for selling is just the baseline. Both buyer and seller are going to be rolling Charisma checks to negotiate prices, and Wisdom checks to avoid falling for each others persuasions. The guy who dumps Charisma and / or Wisdom is likely to pay more for his gear, unless he hires someone to interlocute for him (and, barring PCs buying each others stuff, the professional buyers don't work for free, either).
Introducing a 'haggling' house rule of this sort might serve as yet another way to make Charisma useful (to sell one's own loot at a higher rate of return, and spend less of one's own personal WBL upgrading gear).
The Fighter with the Cha 13 might not be as strong as the one who dumped it to 8, but he might have masterwork gear faster... :)
I'm not terribly adversarial, as a GM, so I wouldn't deliberately pick on PCs who dumped this attribute or that, but I do use encumbrance rules, and the Str 6 Gnome is gonna find that she's earned those piddly two points she shaved that way. Similarly, in deciding NPC reactions, I keep track of who has above average and below average Charisma scores on my little...
This.
And over a long period of time the player is going to feel the pinch.
Thats not 'deliberately picking on anyone' as the dumpstatters usually decry, that is simply implementing and enforcing the conditions they chose to play under.
I just haven't ever seen it done... not a once... and neither have you, and you know it.
I've seen it done several times, though I would agree that people who dump Charisma tend to give up on it entirely more often than not, and putting points into more than one or maybe two social skills is rare.
Although it's also rare for most of the high-Charisma PCs I've seen, so...
Ok fair point, they often stock up on Intimidate :p
Although to be really frank I prefer the 2nd Ed version which can be indexed to Cha OR Str. I don't think you should need to spend feats for this to be the case.
|
"See, we tend to play games where there is more to it than simply being a Table-Top MMO Dungeon bash."
This line adds nothing to the discussion.
"If that's all you are doing then dump the CHA stat and have a cool time, we did that when i was a teenager too."
This line is insulting.
"Personally I'd be bored stiff in playing a tactical mini's game."
This line also adds nothing to the discussion.
I just haven't ever seen it done... not a once... and neither have you, and you know it.
I've seen it done several times, though I would agree that people who dump Charisma tend to give up on it entirely more often than not, and putting points into more than one or maybe two social skills is rare.
Although it's also rare for most of the high-Charisma PCs I've seen, so...
which only indicates a different play style.
To claim that because one stat shines more under one play style over another means it is broken is foolish.Claiming that because the GM has to actually do some work rather than rely on set rules says a lot about play styles as well.
Personally I hate systems that try to codify everything into numbers only.
If I wanted to play that style of game I would not be sitting at a gaming table but rather in front of my TV with my PS3/Xbox 360/PC with the MMO of my choice.
This line adds nothing to the discussion.
And yet you added that line twice :p
Sorry ToZ, but the first line outlines what I believe the style of game would be that dumps social interactive skills - basically Warhammer 40k with a Fantasy wrapper with very little real investment into their motives and interactions with others (other than advancement between conflicts).
In case you missed it though, there is no discussion on this topic (nor has there ever been) as both camps are particularly entrenched in their point of view - its a fundamental difference and neither will ever agree with the other.
Play how you want.
I just happen to think you are wrong.
Ford V GM.
You hate poker? :)
Yes :(
You hate poker? :)
Personally I hate systems that try to codify everything into numbers only.
Being an amateur poker player I can safely say no matter how much you think the game is about numbers you would be wrong.
It is all about people and their interactions.maybe I do have those pocket rockets or maybe I am bluffing? How well have you studied my "tells"? How well can I hide them?
|
|
In case you missed it though, there is no discussion on this topic (nor has there ever been) as both camps are particularly entrenched in their point of view - its a fundamental difference and neither will ever agree with the other.
Who are you talking to again? ;)
On the subject of 'binary' discussions, next you'll tell me the U.S. invaded Iraq only for oil.
I just feel like "sure, there isn't enough in the actual rules to make this fair, but I can fiat it" is the ultimate sign of giving up when it comes to trying to balance a game.In the games I am involved with, as player and a GM, CHA matters, dump at own risk.
I'm not sure why there are rules required to describe how much of life is interacting with other people rather than being a crazed killbot all day every day.
Want to be a crazed killbot with a 4 CHA? Fine. But you're going to be upcharged by every shopkeeper who doesn't like the look of you, rejected by every barmaid, passed over for medals, the cowled stranger looking for a hero thinks "that guy looks like he's a douche" and gives the side quest to someone else... Meet overwhelming force? You're not going to talk your way out of it. Good thing you have better combat stats, because you're going to be exercising them a lot.
Being an amateur poker player I can safely say no matter how much you think the game is about numbers you would be wrong.So much for that joke.
But seriously, the system of poker is all about numbers only. The game of poker is about player interactions.
I think that applies to D&D as well.
its the internet...
only blatant jokes works...Subtlety is lost.
But yeah I see what you did there now...
Which was my point as well.
I however seem to have failed it relaying it.
You hate poker? :)
Personally I hate systems that try to codify everything into numbers only.Being an amateur poker player I can safely say no matter how much you think the game is about numbers you would be wrong.
It is all about people and their interactions.maybe I do have those pocket rockets or maybe I am bluffing? How well have you studied my "tells"? How well can I hide them?
And this is why just trying to hand wave it as "the GM can do this..." will never fully make cha stat important.
You have two sides, and while neither fully exists without the other, in the same token you've got lots of crap going on there.
I'm talking about Roleplaying and Rollplaying.
this is one of the reasons every one of my characters has to have about a 12-14 int, as I'm an extremely logical type person who analyzes things, possibly to the point of over analyzing them.
It is almost impossible for me to break away from solving the problems, especially since everyone at my table, save for one girl, is pretty much incapable of solving the problems. We've got two players who are actually mentally handicapped, one of which usually doesn't do much of anything (in game) unless the other one tells her to do it unless its combat.
Anytime something starts happening, she wants to roll for initiative when she is ready to do something. There is a lot of people I've met thus far that are like that.
There are DMs out there who are not a Groucho Marx, capable of improvising at the drop of a hat.
However, that is not the point.
The point is, as I've heard at least, Paizo wants to put more focus on cha by adding in more classes that have cha as their primary stat. However until the stat itself is changed, it will NEVER be as important as the other stats (Unless you have some amazing GM who is like totally capable of a bunch of stuff)
On the subject of 'binary' discussions, next you'll tell me the U.S. invaded Iraq only for oil.
Nah, I hate those people. :)
|
|
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..."
I call the paladin "stat heavy" because he needs more stats than pretty much any other class, most need 2or 3, paladins should have 4, if they want to get the most out of the class features.
The first and foremost of these should be Charisma, because as far as I've seen it's the most useful, it affects spells, saves, DC, smite, lay on hands, and basically everything you do but walk. He doesn't care about wisdom because of Divine Grace and having a decent wisdom score, he doesn't have spot as a class skill, so it's kind of unimportant there as well.
Paladin doesn't need intelligence because there are only one or two skills paladin really needs, one of them is Religion, the other is Spellcraft, and even that's debatable. You can buy diplomacy, heal, handle animal, and ride, but the only ones you should dip into is diplomacy out of those. I'm not entirely sure why Knowledge (The Planes) or (Dungeoneering) isn't in their skill list, simply so they can know what they should kill, and what they should talk to, but I'm not the one who built it (I say this because there are plenty of neutral-hungry things out there, and knowing if it's going to eat you if it wakes up is pretty friggin' important). You can bet that every paladin I build will have those skills, so I know how to respond to anything I might run into. Otherwise, Int is basically worthless, doesn't do anything for them. Skills are for classes that actually have more than 2+int/level and a wider selection than a meager 10 on a list of 35. That's why they don't travel alone, they aren't geniuses, like wizards or proper rogues, but they aren't complete morons either.
The other classes I mentioned don't really have a use for str, minimal use for dex, and if they are lucky, will never need con.
|
Wow... this thread seems to be a half dozen different sub-discussions now... but just looking at a couple...
1. 'Dump stats' - for me, in a points-buy system, taking an Ability Score into negative 'for the extra points' is 'dump statting'.
The thing I tend to consider isn't 'this guy will never, ever, beat a DC 50 based on that Ability Score, so why bother?', it's more 'can he still beat a DC 10 by Taking 10?'. The Wizard with a 7 Strength and no ranks in Climb who risks death just getting up steep stairs... A Fighter with Intelligence 7 and no ranks in any Knowledge Skills who doesn't even know 'the local laws, rulers, and popular locations' of the place he grew up in... that sort of thing...
When you create a character with a 'dump stat' in this way, you're creating a character who is markedly deficient in some aspect of life. That's fine if that's your aim for characterisation - personally I don't see an issue, for example, with the gruff Fighter type who dumps Charisma, but then puts Skill ranks and Feats and Traits into Intimidate to make himself a 'scary unpleasant man' instead of an 'easily ignorable jerk'. That's a characterisation choice, and a staple of the sort of fiction the game world tends to draw from.
It's the guys who dump an Ability Score, like Charisma, because they think it's 'useless'... but who still want their characters to be treated as if they hadn't done that... that's what I tend to have issues with. Which, sort of, leads me into...
2. 'Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance...' (Core book, page 17). For those who are saying that a DM basing NPC reactions on a character's Charisma is 'handwaving' and 'DM fiat'... then what on Golarion are you using as a basis for NPC reactions instead? The PC meets an NPC, no Bluff or Diplomacy or Intimidate has had a chance to occur... how does the NPC react? Do all NPCs treat all strangers they meet in a completely neutral and equal manner? That would seem... weird... If only there was some sort of Ability Score to help a DM decide how an NPC reacts on initially meeting a PC... oh wait... there is! ;)
But seriously, I'd like to know how other people deal with these things, if they're ignoring Charisma as a guide to how people react?
But without written rules you can't guarantee everyone is going to be able to do it. So any calls for DMs to deal with dumping Charisma by "applying the penalty to NPC interactions" fails to be a solution for everyone.
This statement assumes that not every one who plays is capable of thinking for themselves.
That is a poor attitude.The hobby has a reputation for its enthusiasts to be many things. Unintelligent has never been one of them.
... instead the classes should be revamped a wee bit so that all of them have Multiple Ability Dependency? At least enough to make players think twice before dumping some scores for others.
Something like this?
(Key: Has been changed/added. )STRENGTH
- Attack bonus for melee attacks.
- Damage bonus for melee and throwing weapons, and slings.
- Combat Maneuver attack and defense.
- Weight encumbrance.
- Skills: Climb and Swim.
- Burst and Break checks.
- Feat Qualifying: (7 total) Dreadful Carnage, Eldritch Claws, Furious Focus, Power Attack, Pushing Assault, Rending Claws, and Shield of Swings.
DEXTERITY
- Bonus to Initiative checks.
- AC Bonus.
- Combat Maneuver defense.
- Reflex saving throws.
- Skills: Acrobatics, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, Sleight of Hand, and Stealth.
- Feat Qualifying: (29 total) Acrobatic Steps, Crossbow Mastery, Deadly Aim, Deflect Arrows, Disrupting Shot, Dodge, Following Step, Go Unnoticed, Greater Two-Weapon Fighting, Improved Grapple, Improved Precise Shot, Improved Sidestep, Improved Two-Weapon Fighting, Lightning Stance, Low Profile, Many Shot, Missile Shield, Nimble Moves, Perfect Strike, Precise Strike, Rapid Shot, Ray Shield, Shot on the Run, Sidestep, Snatch Arrows, Stunning Fist, Two-Weapon Fighting, Whirlwind Attack, and Wind Stance.
CONSTITUTION
- Bonus Hitpoints (with the additional "how far into negatives" you go).
- Fortitude saving throws.
- Avoiding non-lethal damage from effects (running/force march, weather/temperature).
- Avoid drowning/suffocation.
- Feat Qualifying: (9 total) Deep Drinker, Elemental Fist, Fast Drinker, Fast Healer, Fight On, Ironguts, Ironhide, Punishing Kick, and Raging Vitality.
INTELLIGENCE
- Bonus to Initiative checks (stacking with Dexterity).
- Bonus Languages.
- Bonus skill points.
- Skills: Appraise, Craft, Knowledge (10 total), Linguistics, and Spellcraft.
- Feat Qualifying: (2 total) Combat Expertise and Focused Shot.
WISDOM
- Attack bonus for ranged attacks.
- Will saving throws.
- Morale defense checks/saving throws (see Charisma).
- Skills: Heal, Perception, Profession, Sense Motive, and Survival.
- Feat Qualifying: (10 total) Eagle Eyes, Elemental Fist, Improved Stonecunning, Keen Scent, Natural Spell, Perfect Strike, Punishing Kick, Shared Insight, Stunning Fist, and Touch of Serenity.
CHARISMA
- Reputation checks (applied in gaming similar to knowledge and profession checks, helping: gaining favors or information, or hindering: losing out on help or lowering initial attitudes).
- Morale attack checks (similar to demoralize, only automatic at start of combat/initiative roll, size bonuses, folded into the dragon fear: ongoing past first round, etc). Think of it as something to check, similar to surprise rounds.
- Skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device.
- Undead use for hitpoints, fortitude saving throws and con-related abilities.
- Opposing checks to influence people (such as in the Enthrall spell).
- Feat Qualifying: (10 total) Arcane Talent, Childlike, Gnome Trickster, Groundling, Leaf Singer, Selective Channeling, Sociable, Stone Singer, Taunt, and War Singer.
.
Some thoughts...
- I like Wisdom as the ranged attack roll, but Dexterity kept as damage (for features/abilities that grant it), as well as for qualifying for feats. It keeps Dexterity important as a ranged combatant thing, just like it's important for a TWFer. But makes Wisdom more important, and it still fits very well thematically.
- Intelligence on the Initiative roll so that speed of thought (deciding how to act quickly) is as important as how fast your body starts moving. It also means people have more than one way to get a decent initiative score (instead of being the main "thing" for only sneaks and ranged/twfers), with stacking still allowing for those that are quick thinking AND quick moving having a bonus over everyone.
- Spell damage can already use a little help. I like the idea of precision damage being Int-focused, while pure extra "oomph" being Charisma-focused.. no matter what class it is. If this means Wizards are better at sniping, and Sorcerers are better at wiping out groups, then it just gives even more distinction between two very similar classes. It also seems to fit them thematically, so I'm leaning towards this being a good way to delineate spell damage bonus.
- Reputation and Morale checks. This puts in some simple, but useful Charisma focused game elements.
Morale adds a much needed "everyone applicable" combat effect of Charisma. Certain classes (*cough*Fighters*cough*) should likely get a bonus to this on either attack and/or defense (hello Bravery feature). Maybe if successful in affecting an enemy, they have a penalty on their Initiative roll, and attacks for the first round, and "fail by X or more" might even give shaken/fear effects. Predator animals should likely get some bonus to this, while size bonuses gives an Ogre that initial burst of scary.
Reputation would likely come into play rarely (about as often as knowledge or profession checks might come in handy), but it could also be folded into the Leadership feat, as well as might become very useful for games like Kingmaker. Maybe even allow a reputation check to influence/add bonus to the starting morale check in combat, when applicable.
.
Any good?
2. 'Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance...' (Core book, page 17). For those who are saying that a DM basing NPC reactions on a character's Charisma is 'handwaving' and 'DM fiat'... then what on Golarion are you using as a basis for NPC reactions instead? The PC meets an NPC, no Bluff or Diplomacy or Intimidate has had a chance to occur... how does the NPC react? Do all NPCs treat all strangers they meet in a completely neutral and equal manner? That would seem... weird... If...
Just like silvermoonpaw said though.
You might have cha.. but then you also have race, height, weight, current adventuring gear and about a billion little things..
But still no certifiable rules on "if the CHA is this number, and add in these modifieres.. then NPC reaction is this."
I've had a character with 18 cha 16 com, always wore the latest and greatest gear.. but he was treated like pond scum because he was a lupin and not human simply because the DM had a vendetta against 'furries'
Just because you lower below a 10 doesn't exactly mean your character has become golem. Your character could actually be incredibly good looking but have the personality of a rock. The character could have a great personality, but look even uglier than a green slime.
Lets go through the races that have a bonus/negitive to cha..
Negitive
Dwarves are both tough and wise, but also a bit gruff.
Duergar are hearty and observant, but also stubborn and belligerent.
Goblins are fast, but weak and unpleasant to be around.
Orcs are brutal and savage
Svirfneblin are fast and observant, but relatively weak and emotionally distant.
Tieflings are quick in body and mind, but are inherently strange.
Oreads are strong, solid, stable, and stoic.
Bonus
Gnomes are physically weak but surprisingly hardy, and their attitude makes them naturally agreeable.
Halflings are nimble and strong-willed, but their small stature makes them weaker than other races.
Aasimars are insightful,confident, and personable.
Merfolk are graceful, hale, and beautiful.
Dhampirs are fast and seductive, but closer to death than most mortals.
Fetchlings are quick and forceful, but often strange and easily distracted easily by errant thoughts.
Ifrits are passionate and quick, but also impetuous and destructive.
I dunno about you, but fetchlings are quite easily capable of getting 20 cha of the start.. But have you looked at their picture? Definantly not something I'd want to kiss my baby. Same with Ifrits.. They would probably burn my baby and eat him.
But a low cha score could mean that the character is strange. Dr. Brennan from Bones for example at the start of the show would have a low cha score, but you wouldn't say she was ugly or that people react to her in a negative way. Not until someone says something and she corrects them.
Seriously though, a hag walks into a bar.. are you just gonna try to base the NPC reactions off her cha? Probally not, you are going to through race into the matter.
Now what does race mean for NPC by NPC? One NPC might be completely in love with cockroaches while another is disgusted by them. So if a cockroach walks into a bar, one NPC will scream while the other will try to hit on it.
You start going down the path of needing to flesh out the NPC. If a dwarf with 18 cha walked into a dwarven bar, he might actually be laughed out of the bar. While one with 5 cha might be cheered for. Much of it depends on the RP of the character, rather than the stat itself.
|
|
But without written rules you can't guarantee everyone is going to be able to do it. So any calls for DMs to deal with dumping Charisma by "applying the penalty to NPC interactions" fails to be a solution for everyone.
You need written rules to justify a DM doing what a DM is meant to do (playing the NPCs in character)? Okay, how about page 8 of the Core book, which explain what the game is all about? Or, even better, page 396 which explains what being a Gamesmaster is all about? Storyteller, Entertainer, Judge, Inventor, Player...
No-one's trying to say that you shouldn't DM if you're not an expert at all those things... but you'd expect most people to at least try, and most people to want to get better at them... if they're interested in playing the game at all. Part of the DM's job is to play the NPCs in-character - the PC's Charisma score is a helpful guideline for when he's doing that...
I'm not sure I even see the counter-argument here: not all DMs are good at roleplaying, therefore roleplaying shouldn't be an aspect of the game? I don't get it. It's a bit like wanting to be the lead in a play, but not being able to act... and instead of giving it a go and trying to get better at acting, just claiming that 'requiring acting talent isn't fair' and that 'acting shouldn't be a part of plays'...
Maybe I'm just missing the point being made?
After all, it's really something of a self-correcting issue. If you play in a group where Charisma has an effect, then having a high or low Charisma is already an important part of the game. If you play in a group where Charisma is 'pointless' then you've a few more points to make your character better for all those nice dice rolls in combat. Who exactly loses out here?
EDIT:
You start going down the path of needing to flesh out the NPC. If a dwarf with 18 cha walked into a dwarven bar, he might actually be laughed out of the bar. While one with 5 cha might be cheered for. Much of it depends on the RP of the character, rather than the stat itself.
So your argument is that Charisma is a pointless Ability Score because you choose to ignore it completely in favour of DM fiat and basing NPC reactions on the player's, rather than the character's social skills?
Just like silvermoonpaw said though.You might have cha.. but then you also have race, height, weight, current adventuring gear and about a billion little things..
But still no certifiable rules on "if the CHA is this number, and add in these modifieres.. then NPC reaction is this."
I've had a character with 18 cha 16 com, always wore the latest and greatest gear.. but he was treated like pond scum because he was a lupin and not human simply because the DM had a vendetta against 'furries'
Just because you lower below a 10 doesn't exactly mean your character has become golem. Your character could actually be incredibly good looking but have the personality of a rock. The character could have a great personality, but look even uglier than a green slime.
Lets go through the races that have a bonus/negitive to cha..
Negitive
Dwarves are both tough and wise, but also a bit gruff.
Duergar are hearty and observant, but also stubborn and belligerent.
Goblins are fast, but weak and unpleasant to be around.
Orcs are brutal and savage
Svirfneblin are fast and observant, but relatively weak and emotionally distant.
Tieflings are quick in body and mind, but are inherently strange.
Oreads are strong, solid, stable, and stoic.Bonus
Gnomes are physically weak but surprisingly hardy, and their attitude makes them naturally agreeable.
Halflings are nimble and strong-willed, but their small stature makes them weaker than other...
There are games out there that have excellent social interaction rules. Having rules doesn't discourage role-playing (otherwise you'd have to concede that there is no role-playing in combat, which accounts for the majority of the Pathfinder system). In fact, I have found the exact opposite. The rules encourage role-playing, but they also tighten the interactions into more relevant and meaningful scenes. Instead of just relying on DM fiat, or allowing a very well-spoken player to play a low Cha character, the player gets to say some words (role-playing) and roll the dice to determine the outcome. A better defined system takes the decision of success/failure out of the GM's hands, and lets him focus on what that success/failure means. In essence, it works exactly the same as combat.
I would recommend you check out some of those games, see what you like, see what you don't like and maybe adapt them for Pathfinder. Here are two games I like a lot that have cool/interesting social systems.
Burning Wheel
Song of Ice and Fire RPG (green ronin version)
Another game I know had a modified social system was A Game of Thrones by Guardians of Order (out of print), though I don't remember how good it was but the system was a heavily modified d20.
It feels like your trying to shoehorn a persons ability to communicate socially into combat, when that isn't necessarily where it belongs.
Maybe I'm just missing the point being made?
The point is something like this:
The obvious question is that, if lack of mechanics is best handled by "role-playing," why not get rid of hp? And levels? Just role-play how hard you are to kill, or how skilled you are.
|
|
The obvious question is that, if lack of mechanics is best handled by "role-playing," why not get rid of hp? And levels? Just role-play how hard you are to kill, or how skilled you are.
But that's the point - there is a mechanic for how charismatic your character is - the Charisma Ability Score. You're not expected to ignore that in favour of roleplaying (as some seem to suggest), but to base your roleplaying of NPC reactions on that mechanic. Just as you're expected to describe the wounds people suffer when they lose Hit Points, but that doesn't mean you ignore the Hit Points they mechanically lost.
Put another way, the Charisma Ability Score enables a socially awkward introvert to play a charismatic social dynamo, just as the Strength Ability Score lets a weakling play a Herculean demi-god... or vice-versa as the case may be.
I've DMed plenty of games with socially less-than-perfect players - it's not the easiest part of the job, but you have to react to their social roleplay with a mind to their character, not themselves. What may sound like, for example, a laughably lame chat-up line coming from your mate Bob sitting across the table from you, may come across to the NPC barmaid as the height of romantic flattery when delivered by Sir Robert, the heroic paladin which Bob happens to be playing. The Charisma Ability Score in action, ladies and gentlemen...