|
As a Cleric, Intelligence is totally useless to me! I mean, what, I get an extra trained skill or two? WHOOPTI-FREAKIN'-DO! Intelligence is a silly, pointless stat. I mean, all it does is improve my Intelligence-based skills! That's it! All it does is modify my skills.
Dev's, what were you thinking when you made Intelligence a stat? Why couldn't it just be represented by Knowledge Skills? I mean, sure it factors into bonus spells for 3 classes, but for me it's basically worthless, so I can't see the point in having it.
And even then, if I decide to use a Knowledge skill, how much information I get is entirely up to the GM! That's just lousy game design. Making the GM responsible for things because you're too lazy is just inexcusable. You should know that expecting creativity from your players and expecting them to use the rules in whatever way they see fit is a futile effort. Unless you give me exact rules for how these checks are supposed to work, you need to just remove Intelligence from the game. It's pointless, and nobody puts points into it.
[/sarcasm]
|
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.
Do you tell your players what your NPC's Cha score is so they can base their character's reactions to them off of it?
|
But in each case you could do that with a simple tag of "Yes/No" under "Charismatic?"
Sure... if you wanted a range limited to two. The Charisma Ability Score gives a higher range than that.
The point you are missing is that the Charisma Ability Score is not a mechanic, or at least not a complete one. It's just a number with no information on how to apply it except as a modifier to certain checks.
Sure there's information - 10 is 'average', less is worse, more is better... It's not meant to be complicated.
At first impression which character do the dwarves in the bar find more appealing, Charisma 5 dwarf or Charisma 18 dwarf? Let me see... 18 is more than 5, so they like Charisma 18 dwarf better. Good. Now, let's see how close to 'average' those two scores are... 5 is really low... I don't think they like the look of that guy at all... 18 is really high - I'm thinking they're looking favourably on that guy.
It's hardly a complex mechanic... but that's a good thing.
Indeed. Just how charismatic is a character with a 16 Charisma?
More Charismatic than a guy with Charisma 15 or less, but less Charismatic than a guy with 17 or more. Also, more Charismatic than average, by quite a bit, in most communities.
But what on earth does average charisma mean?
But what on earth does average charisma mean?
what does it mean in reality?
Pretty much nothing?
No not nothing.
There is a something to it (otherwise persons like Lincoln, FDR, Kohemeni, etc... could never come to power.)But it is indefinable.
So short of setting numbers to represent degrees of charisma there is not much else the system can do.
And that is the actual issue.
There are those that want a subjective descriptor to have an objective mechanic. (a nigh impossibility).
|
|
I guess my post was too snide to be looked at seriously >_>. Let's try again.
Charisma is only a dump stat depending on your class. If you dump Charisma, it means you are one of the classes that gains little from it. you DON'T gain/care about:
1. Spellcasting (Paladin, Bard, Oracle, Sorcerer)
2. Bonuses to Social and Performing skills
3. Hit Points (Undead)
4. Channeling Positive Energy (Paladin, Cleric, Oracle)
What's wrong with this? I mean, you don't see people up in arms about how Intelligence isn't much more useful. I mean, what does that give you?
1. Spellcasting (Witch, Wizard, Magus)
2. Increased Skill Points
3. Bonus to Knowledge and Craft skills
If anything, Charisma benefits more classes than Intelligence does, yet people complain that it isn't worth it. Psh.
|
|
Bold is DM Fiat, unless you can tell me where in the rules this is explained.
How is basing NPC reactions on the actual numbers DM fiat? Fiat would be an arbitrary decree - an 'it is so, because I say it's so' sort of thing. You know... like when the DM just ignores the numbers and has the NPCs react however... Yes, there has to be a DM judgement call made - but that's not the same thing by a long shot. Where in the rules does it say DMs run the NPCs and make decisions about how the world reacts to the PCs? I thought I already answered that one...
|
|
Bold is DM Fiat, unless you can tell me where in the rules this is explained.How is basing NPC reactions on the actual numbers DM fiat? Fiat would be an arbitrary decree - an 'it is so, because I say it's so' sort of thing. You know... like when the DM just ignores the numbers and has the NPCs react however... Yes, there has to be a DM judgement call made - but that's not the same thing by a long shot. Where in the rules does it say DMs run the NPCs and make decisions about how the world reacts to the PCs? I thought I already answered that one...
I'm gonna disagree with you on this point, though I agree with you that Charisma is useful. There is no system in place which allows you do gauge whether or not NPC's have a better initial attitude towards you based on your Charisma score. Therefore, what you are implementing (however logical) is based on your interpretation of the ability score's impact on the game, not any written ruling.
I would word it as DM judgment, not fiat, as fiat implies purposefully throwing the players a bone without any reason other than "they can't die now" or something along those lines.
|
|
Let's compare them without the class specific and creature type specific points:
Bonuses to Social and Performing skills
Increased Skill Points
Bonus to Knowledge and Craft skills
Languages KnownLooks like 3 to 1 favoring Int to me. Unless you need it for you class/race you are more likely to dump Cha than Int.
And for the sake of argument:
Will Saves
Bonus to Heal, Sense Motive, Survival, Profession and Perception (most used skill in the game) skills
Okay, so if you play a character that you want to be more adept in social interaction (i.e., social skills) you get higher Charisma. If you want more skill points or better bonuses to knowledge, you get higher Intelligence. If you don't value those skills, you dump the stat. I fail to see the problem here.
Okay, so if you play a character that you want to be more adept in social interaction (i.e., social skills) you get higher Charisma. If you want more skill points or better bonuses to knowledge, you get higher Intelligence. If you don't value those skills, you dump the stat. I fail to see the problem here.
Because by median level, my smart guy is far better at social interaction than your charismatic guy -- according to the rules as written. Let's look at a sorcerer (Int 10, Cha 18), and a wizard (Int 18, Cha 10), so that we have an excuse for the large stat dichotomy, and so they have the same base number of skill points/level. Pretend they're 6th level. Ignoring class skills for the time being, your sorcerer can maybe max Diplomacy and Bluff -- bonus of +10 (6 ranks +4 Cha) in each. That assumes he has no other skills -- he intentionally ignores his stock-in-trade skills like Fly and Spellcraft. The wizard can max Diplomacy and Bluff as well -- for a bonus of only +6 (6 ranks +0 Cha) in each. But he can also max out Gather Information (+6) and Intimidate (+6) and Disguise (+6), and can still max out Spellcraft or Fly.
Who is more socially adept? Total bonuses in social skills:
And the dichotomy gets larger as they continue to advance in their careers.
I'm not saying that Charisma SHOULDN'T be valuable. On the contrary. I'm saying that its value should be reflected in the actual game rules, rather than being undermined by them.
Indeed. Just how charismatic is a character with a 16 Charisma? By the rules, it means he succeeds on Diplomacy rolls 15% more than average. That's it.
And that, as far as I'm concerned, is pretty much sufficient.
|
|
Indeed. Just how charismatic is a character with a 16 Charisma? By the rules, it means he succeeds on Diplomacy rolls 15% more than average. That's it.And that, as far as I'm concerned, is pretty much sufficient.
Agreed.
@Kirth: True, but the Sorcerer is more likely to get favorable outcomes on those bluff and Diplomacy checks... which is the whole point. Total skills or not, he picked those skills as a Sorcerer so he could be awesome at them, not just okay across the board.
|
|
I'm gonna disagree with you on this point, though I agree with you that Charisma is useful. There is no system in place which allows you do gauge whether or not NPC's have a better initial attitude towards you based on your Charisma score. Therefore, what you are implementing (however logical) is based on your interpretation of the ability score's impact on the game, not any written ruling.
If you're talking about the five really broad categories of 'attitude' under the Diplomacy Skill, then that's not even what I was refering to... although it makes sense, in certain situations, for starting attitudes to be based on an NPC's initial impressions. That's highly circumstancial, of course. But there's a lot of room within each of those generic 'attitude' bands - an indifferent shopkeeper can be polite without (mechanically) being 'friendly', or snarky without (mechanically) being 'unfriendly', after all. Charisma as a guideline to how people treat your character is a mechanic which informs how the NPCs are roleplayed - and that positive or negative manner in which they treat you is one of the primary rewards or penalties of the Charisma Ability Score... how you maximise or minimise how much that helps you out is up to the individual PCs to attempt.
But he can also max out Gather Information (+6) and Intimidate (+6) and Disguise (+6), and can still max out Spellcraft or Fly.
[nitpick]Gather Information is a function of the Diplomacy Skill, not a seperate Skill, in Pathfinder.[/nitpick]
Cue "The wizard has a lower Cha so the sorcerer will get better treatment no matter what the rolls say, because I'm the DM and I say so."
It's weird that you'd think that. The high Charisma Sorcerer will most likely get a better initial reaction from people - 'cos he has a higher Charisma. If it comes down to Skill rolls, then the dice do their thing...
But what about the Charisma-based situations which aren't covered by the Skills? For example, you need to get a crowd to clear out of an open area because a big ol' monster's about to crash through the city wall. What do you roll? Diplomacy? You don't have the time, and aren't being diplomatic. Bluff? You're not trying to fool anyone. Intimidate? You're not trying to frighten anyone. Perform (oratory)? You're not giving a speech. You just need them to get the heck out... Luckily you can make Ability Score checks, and one of them covers your powers of command and leadership...
The question is how the "Where do the rules tell the DM how to apply the Charisma score?"
Under the definition of what the Charisma Ability Score represents about a character.
I honestly can't see why people would want more mechanics-heavy rules bogging down the use of Charisma in the game - it's basic, it's simple... it does exactly what it says on the tin...
I honestly can't see why people would want more mechanics-heavy rules bogging down the use of Charisma in the game - it's basic, it's simple...
For the EXACT same reason that people want rules for hp, levels, and saving throws. Why have mechanics-heavy rules bogging down your combat? Just declare whether you succeed. Maybe characters can have an informal "combat rating" that sort of implies who's better, but you can always role-play around that. Rules do nothing but get in the way of Storytime fun. Making up stories is so basic and so simple, that ALL rules can be abolished.
The existence of detailed, mechanics-heavy combat rules do not prevent people from just making up stories about how fights turn out. Those people can always ignore those annoying rules -- or better yet, not even buy them, and save money besides! -- and just play make-believe. But the absence of those rules would mean that each group that wants them needs to hammer out those rules for themselves, which means they really don't want to shell out $$$ for a rulebook that still leaves them wanting.
Likewise, the existence of mechanics-heavy uses for Charisma would be similar. You could still ignore them and just make up reactions and interactions based on the raw score. But the people who wanted those rules will feel like they're getting the value for their money, in terms of buying the rules.
Let's compare them without the class specific and creature type specific points:
Bonuses to Social and Performing skills
Increased Skill Points
Bonus to Knowledge and Craft skills
Languages KnownLooks like 3 to 1 favoring Int to me. Unless you need it for you class/race you are more likely to dump Cha than Int.
Let's look closer. Compare skills. How often are those skill likely to be used? Campaign dependent. But the Charisma could come into play for every interpersonal interaction, in theory. Knowledge skills - not so much. In play, based on a reasonably balanced campaign not so heavily focused on kicking in doors and killing things, Charisma scores probably would come up more than knowledge or language.
I certainly wouldn't treat language as a significant additional factor compared to skills (after all, you can get one for a single skill rank). So even if we weighted the effect of skills the same between intelligence and charisma, Intelligence only adds 2 benefits to 1, not 3 to 1. If you weigh skills as they're likely to be useful in a game with reasonably balanced situations, I'd say the ratio is really more like 2 to 1.5.
And for the sake of argument:
Will Saves
Bonus to Heal, Sense Motive, Survival, Profession and Perception (most used skill in the game) skills
Now if your thesis was that Wisdom were too good compared to both Charisma and Intelligence, I'd be more likely to agree. Will saves are the catch-all save for anything not obviously targeting Fortitude or Reflexes. So that save generally gets exercised more than any other. For classes that do use Wisdom offensively, the synergy of using a good offense stat as a defensive stat is pretty big.
But when thinking about builds for powers, what stats are the most dispensable or least dispensable?
Let's look at the easy ones:
Charisma - dispensable for anyone not needing it directly for powers.
Intelligence - dispensable for anyone not needing it for powers and who has enough skill points to get by.
Constitution - not dispensable because everyone benefits from the hit points
Harder:
Strength - partly dispensable for non-cleric/druid spellcasters but could hamper carrying/CMD if low
Dexterity - widely useful, but somewhat dispensable for heavy armor melee types and clerics
Wisdom - widely useful, but somewhat dispensable if your powers aren't based on it
Based on that, if I were to build a table of stats I've seen dumped most, it would go like this (in descending order):
Charisma
Intelligence
Wisdom/Dexterity
Strength
Constitution
In the end, there are differences in the skills and their utility. Charisma and Intelligence are both low on the pole compared to every other stat unless you directly need them. Both Dexterity and Wisdom are prime culprits that could use a knock down in significance because of broad utility. But I think, somewhat ironically, they're also the 3rd and 4th most likely to be dumped (largely because Con is almost never dumped and strength rarely).
|
|
Lots of sarcastic nonsense...
Charisma doesn't need to be overly complex = throw out the whole rulebook? Please...
Likewise, the existence of mechanics-heavy uses for Charisma would be similar. You could still ignore them and just make up reactions and interactions based on the raw score. But the people who wanted those rules will feel like they're getting the value for their money, in terms of buying the rules.
How mechanics-heavy do you want your Charisma rules? A chart indicating every muscle twitch of someone's smile maybe (hey - I can be sarcastic too... who knew?)... Why do you need more than the guidelines and rules we have now? What would the game gain? I haven't seen people on this thread arguing for that anyway - but rather arguing for either getting rid of Charisma as an Ability Score simply because they tend to ignore it in their games, or adding mechanical benefits other Ability Scores have to Charisma instead, often in favour of balance over what those Ability Scores logically represent. Me, I'm in the 'it works okay as is, thanks' group...
But when thinking about builds for powers, what stats are the most dispensable or least dispensable?
Let's look at the easy ones:
Charisma - dispensable for anyone not needing it directly for powers.
Intelligence - dispensable for anyone not needing it for powers and who has enough skill points to get by.
Constitution - not dispensable because everyone benefits from the hit pointsHarder:
Strength - partly dispensable for non-cleric/druid spellcasters but could hamper carrying/CMD if low
Dexterity - widely useful, but somewhat dispensable for heavy armor melee types and clerics
Wisdom - widely useful, but somewhat dispensable if your powers aren't based on itBased on that, if I were to build a table of stats I've seen dumped most, it would go like this (in descending order):
Charisma
Intelligence
Wisdom/Dexterity
Strength
ConstitutionIn the end, there are differences in the skills and their utility. Charisma and Intelligence are both low on the pole compared to every other stat unless you directly need them. Both Dexterity and Wisdom are prime culprits that could use a knock down in significance because of broad utility. But I think, somewhat ironically, they're also the 3rd and 4th most likely to be dumped (largely because Con is almost never dumped and strength rarely).
While the thesis is sound I would have to argue that the order is still subjective. It all depends on the type of game you play.
Many the time I have seen Con, and Dex treated as dump stats or Cha treated as the most desirable stat because the game centered more on the mental/social aspects of the setting rather than on the physical.|
|
It's weird that you'd think that. The high Charisma Sorcerer will most likely get a better initial reaction from people - 'cos he has a higher Charisma. If it comes down to Skill rolls, then the dice do their thing...But what about the Charisma-based situations which aren't covered by the Skills? For example, you need to get a crowd to clear out of an open area because a big ol' monster's about to crash through the city wall. What do you roll? Diplomacy? You don't have the time, and aren't being diplomatic. Bluff? You're not trying to fool anyone. Intimidate? You're not trying to frighten anyone. Perform (oratory)? You're not giving a speech. You just need them to get the heck out... Luckily you can make Ability Score checks, and one of them covers your powers of command and leadership...
Diplomacy could be attempted as a standard action at a penalty in 3.5. I don't know that PF brought that along. Intimidate could be used. "RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!" Oratory doesn't require a written speech if I recall correctly, it just covers public speaking. But yes, a straight Cha check can cover it too. It just rarely does.
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...
That's why I hate it that so many people want to be able to link Intimidate to Strength for their Barbarians and Half Orcs. If you want to be a terrifying force of nature, stop dumping the ability score that does that.
Something like this?
I like the cut of your jib.
I changed saving throws to work off of all 6 ability scores. Instead of three, there are now six. Cha is the primary saving throw for fear effects.
I would be interesting in seeing these houserules. They sound quite interesting.
|
I changed saving throws to work off of all 6 ability scores. Instead of three, there are now six. Cha is the primary saving throw for fear effects.I would be interesting in seeing these houserules. They sound quite interesting.
That is kinda neat. Linking fear resistance to wisdom always seemed a bit off, since, in real-life, the most 'fearless' people aren't always the most wise...
Then again, that's more to do with the difference between someone who has the courage / determination / grit to overcome reasonable fears, and the one who's too thick to realize that he's supposed to be afraid in the first place. :)
I changed saving throws to work off of all 6 ability scores. Instead of three, there are now six. Cha is the primary saving throw for fear effects.I would be interesting in seeing these houserules. They sound quite interesting.
++
Let's look closer. Compare skills. How often are those skill likely to be used? Campaign dependent. But the Charisma could come into play for every interpersonal interaction, in theory. Knowledge skills - not so much. In play, based on a reasonably balanced campaign not so heavily focused on kicking in doors and killing things, Charisma scores probably would come up more than knowledge or language.
I certainly wouldn't treat language as a significant additional factor compared to skills (after all, you can get one for a single skill rank). So even if we weighted the effect of skills the same between intelligence and charisma, Intelligence only adds 2 benefits to 1, not 3 to 1. If you weigh skills as they're likely to be useful in a game with reasonably balanced situations, I'd say the ratio is really more like 2 to 1.5.
Actually just today
Social skills? None used.. all RPed. Actually there might have been one roll.. but mostly everything was RPed around.
Knowledge skills? Used almost every encounter to ID the monster(s). I've played with a number of groups.. the moment you put a monster or anything that is "unidentified" they immediately started throwing for knowledge checks.
Languages? More often than not, every time a social skill comes up, a language also comes up. We needed to diplomacy with Kobolds, so our draconian speakers spoke to them.. I don't quite remember if the dice were rolled or not though.
Actually just today
Social skills? None used.. all RPed. Actually there might have been one roll.. but mostly everything was RPed around.
This, IMHO, is one of the biggest problems with Charisma -- the hack and slash games don't care about it because it's irrelevant to them, but the more social / RP a game is, the less likely it is that dice rolling will resolve any social situation and the more likely the group just RPs it out. And, sure, while people will jump on the 5 CHR Dwarf who suaves it up in the social settings, nobody ever freaks out about the 10 CHR dude who dominates social encounters by virtue of a more charismatic or outgoing player.
Let's look closer. Compare skills. How often are those skill likely to be used? Campaign dependent. But the Charisma could come into play for every interpersonal interaction, in theory. Knowledge skills - not so much. In play, based on a reasonably balanced campaign not so heavily focused on kicking in doors and killing things, Charisma scores probably would come up more than knowledge or language.
I certainly wouldn't treat language as a significant additional factor compared to skills (after all, you can get one for a single skill rank). So even if we weighted the effect of skills the same between intelligence and charisma, Intelligence only adds 2 benefits to 1, not 3 to 1. If you weigh skills as they're likely to be useful in a game with reasonably balanced situations, I'd say the ratio is really more like 2 to 1.5.
Actually just today
Social skills? None used.. all RPed. Actually there might have been one roll.. but mostly everything was RPed around.
This is very different from my experience yesterday. I was GMing a new game with some people I haven't played with before. One of the guys is someone who splits their time between 4e and 3.5 and I'm introducing him to PF. It was nearly completely RP, and those social skills came into play. I played them very much along the lines of the check representing how good your verbiage was in game. For example, people can't really understand how persuasive that 23 CHA succubus is. Even just getting into the 18-20 realm is difficult to accurately represent. If a negotiation were to come up and the players get completely thrashed on their diplomacy roll, I presume there's a sufficient number of loopholes in the agreement to make the contract be not binding for the other side. If you take what the players say as what the characters say verbatim then you're allowing the players to effectively metagame. A diplomacy or other roll should represent how well the character phrases and gestures what the player intends. If things like this aren't happening in your game, then CHA will be useless.
Languages? More often than not, every time a social skill comes up, a language also comes up. We needed to diplomacy with Kobolds, so our draconian speakers spoke to them.. I don't quite remember if the dice were rolled or not though.
And this mirrors the other problem. For most social encounters most groups turn to the party "face". Usually the character with the highest Cha and most likely someone whose class uses it. Odds are pretty good more than half the social encounters will be with characters who speak common, so even if the "face" doesn't have a lot of languages, it is usually a safe bet that the "face" can handle it.
An analogy would be - as long as one PC has a good enough Str to do the heavy lifting, why does anyone else need Str. (only Str has more uses than just heavy lifting)
Pretty much actually true..
We've got one character with 18 str. Everyone else has it around 8-10 points depending on race. (I was a 13)
Now after getting armor and a bit of adventuring gear, I pretty much hit my max light load. (I don't like going higher) But we had horses and the tank to carry the rest of the stuff for us.
Now we've got to figure out how to get a gnome summoner out of a 60 foot deep hole, when no one really has the ability to pull this off. (and two of us died during the encounter)
As a DM, I tend to try to make sure that I have a gradient of response a particular NPC might have to the situation at hand (even if it's just a binary "bad result/good result").
So when my players roleplay out a situation, I use that roleplay to open the door to rolling a Diplomacy check to get the desired effect. Depending on what they say/do during their roleplay (if they reference something important as leverage in asking for help, calling in favors, put their foot in their mouth, etc), I apply bonuses and penalties to that check.
Aid another comes up a lot (and not necessarily with the Diplomacy skill.. someone might try and use their Knowledge of something to create a leverage point, etc).
So my social encounters are kind of two-part: roleplaying to do the things they wanted, with dice rolls to see if they are successful or not.
Without the dice, it'd just be my own arbitrary "did I think the NPC will believe the PC". To be a good DM in that method, I'd have to take into account the player's character's investment in his social ability (Charisma score, skill set, etc). If I'm doing that anyways, why not make them roll a check?
If I don't take that into account, then yeah.. why even have a character sheet, or even a character at that point. Not taking that stuff into account means you are putting the player in the made up situation, not a character.
.
Anyways, for those that want an added level of effect for their social situations, I think a Reputation mechanic for initial attitudes, and influencing applicable social checks, would be fairly easy to implement.
It would make players keep in mind how their actions might piss off a particular faction, if they have a running tally of how famous (or infamous) they are becoming.
Now we've got to figure out how to get a gnome summoner out of a 60 foot deep hole, when no one really has the ability to pull this off. (and two of us died during the encounter)
And bringing the analogy back to Charisma, it's the equivalent of running into a situation where it'd be beneficial to have more than one speaker, or if the party "face" died, or if there's no way for the party "face" to have the language (or maybe the party "face" has some kind of deterrant to talking, like the people needing to talk to hate him or his race or whatever).
It's a rarer situation, but this makes dumping Charisma for anyone else a problem as much as dumping Strength does in other situations.
I think, for the most part, having doors closed and options unavailable are a good enough set back for dumping Charisma, without the need to "stick it to the character" (like forcing social encounters on him when he actively avoids it).
Play it out logically. Don't target a PC for any metagame reason (high or low stat involved). If the NPCs don't know, or have no reason to use that kind of knowledge if they do, then a contrived situation should be unnecessary.
The King that says "Stop talking bard.. I want to hear what the Barbarian has to say.", then it should be for valid reasons:
- He is afraid of being lied to by someone who's good at dressing up crap like it's gold (feels the barbarian is less likely to successfully pull off a lie, if the King feels deception might be in play).
- He comes from a tribal or warrior background and feels the opinion of a battle ready character holds more weight than this dandy with a lute and a rapier (a clearly inferior weapon).