which is an intriguing solution. But what is the "in game" or fluff reason for it being based off of Cha? My understanding is spells that affect the mind are what the Will save is for. Is it force of personality or self assurance (which I often attribute to Cha)? But then I have often wondered why it is based off of Wis for the same reason. Is Wis a measure of ones willpower or Mental Fortitude or something else altogether?Wisdom is how you perceive the world, Charisma is how you effect the world. While it makes sense for illusions to be resisted using the Wisdom modifer, since it represents realizing 'something is wrong', it also makes sense for Charisma meaning your mind refuses to be under the effect. More of a 'Wisdom is passive, Charisma is active'.
so a "sense of self" thing then. Yes I can understand that. A rather neat solution. So what stops Wis from becoming the new "dump stat"?
Thats why i think it should be like 4th ed for saves.My issue with that is, then characters have more dump stats.
How do have more dump stats?
Str still gives melee AB and damage
Dex still gives AC
Con still gives hp
Int still gives skill points.
Wis now gives ranged AB
Cha now gives inititive.
|
so a "sense of self" thing then. Yes I can understand that. A rather neat solution. So what stops Wis from becoming the new "dump stat"?
Perception, for the most part. My party is stacked up hard on Perception scores. Add in the other skills, and the Wisdom based class features, and it tends to not be neglected. I haven't yet decided I need to include ranged attacks in there yet.
|
@beej67: I think it's odd that you view Leadership as the ONLY reason to have a decent Charisma score, especially considering I've never even seen it taken. I almost took it once, but it was entirely for roleplaying reasons. Most DM's I've seen have either banned it, or totally removed the combat possibilities from it.
That said, I'm still having a hard time seeing how Charisma is worthless. I mean, we've shown that if you want your social skills to be higher, then that's what you put your stats in. There are a number of classes whose abilities are based on Charisma as well. You could just as easily say that Intelligence provides less of a benefit for a Cleric than Charisma because Charisma directly improves healing ability. You could say that Wisdom is worse for a Bard than Intelligence or Charisma because they need the skills and Charisma for spells.
Why is it so wrong for people to dump Charisma if it fits the character they want to make? I mean, don't get me wrong, I know there are people that basically ignore the stat, but that's their choice, and, more importantly, the DM's choice. Just because people choose to not use Social Skills or have Charisma checks doesn't mean that the two are worthless, it just means that there are different game styles.
My point is that the usefulness of ability scores varies widely depending on the game. It is quite subjective. If you make changes to make certain attributes more appealing, that's fine for your game. But, as written, Charisma fills a specific niche, and it does it well enough.
If you do want to complain, you should go over to the Homebrew forums and post a thread about what you should add to your game to overcome how you nerfed CHA when you took out leadership.
Except what the majority do isn't really in homebrew territory.
Frankly, if you have let's say six PCs each with a cohort that they actually bring along adventuring, combat slows down to unplayable. It shouldn't take allowing something that makes the game so much unfun that the players decide they're going to fire up the XBox instead.
Why is it so wrong for people to dump Charisma if it fits the character they want to make?
It's not wrong, but the game would be more interesting if dumping it weren't almost always the mechanically optimal choice.
Imagine an alternate reality version of Starcraft in which the Protoss side was so terrible as to make it impossible to win with against a remotely similarly skilled opponent. Sure, you could just avoid picking that side and you've "fixed" the problem, but wouldn't it be better still if all the different sides you could pick were equally good and interesting?
Stats are not equal, and classes are not equal.
A paladin can safely set a low dex and int, needing str & cha
A wizard can safely set a low str and cha, needing int and arguably dex.
And besides, unless you max out social skills and preferably spellcasting keyed to it, having a good charisma is as pointless as a wizard putting a high stat in strength. Checks DCs to do anything interesting is going to fail anyway, just like anything dangerous focused on grappling or whatever WILL succeed against your wizard, and when the enemy has a CMB of +25, having Str7 or Str12 won't make a lick of difference.
@beej67
Your premise for Leadership and Charisma falls flat in the face by how easy it is to have a maximum level cohort with 5 Charisma. The higher Charisma then only enables more followers - which is hardly a uber-powerful feature of the feat.
There are both traits and items, as well as several roleplay related aspects that ensure the Leadership score is through the roof.
@beej67
Your premise for Leadership and Charisma falls flat in the face by how easy it is to have a maximum level cohort with 5 Charisma. The higher Charisma then only enables more followers - which is hardly a uber-powerful feature of the feat.
There are both traits and items, as well as several roleplay related aspects that ensure the Leadership score is through the roof.
@beej67: I think it's odd that you view Leadership as the ONLY reason to have a decent Charisma score, especially considering I've never even seen it taken.
It's not the only one, it's just a major one in terms of game balance, and the most important one in terms of combat, because it effectively makes your Bard a Summoner of sorts.
And this thread is fundamentally a game balance thread about how CHA sucks.
Well no freaking wonder, if nobody's allowing what makes CHA awesome. It's the "you get an army" feat. If your witty leader guy has an army he can take down into the Orc cave, he's worth adding to your party. If he's not allowed to bring his army, you pick someone else to bring, which means your player builds a different concept, which means he dumps CHA.
Dear god, does nobody play bards outside of my game?
Why is it so wrong for people to dump Charisma if it fits the character they want to make? I mean, don't get me wrong, I know there are people that basically ignore the stat, but that's their choice, and, more importantly, the DM's choice. Just because people choose to not use Social Skills or have Charisma checks doesn't mean that the two are worthless, it just means that there are different game styles.
My point is that the usefulness of ability scores varies widely depending on the game. It is quite subjective. If you make changes to make certain attributes more appealing, that's fine for your game. But, as written, Charisma fills a specific niche, and it does it well enough.
Totally agree.
I still think shoe-horning in combat modifiers for Charisma feels strange.
If Pathfinder had a 40 page chapter on rules for social interactions, and those rules were used as equally in AP's as combat is now, people would be complaining about how Cha is too OP.
Except what the majority do isn't really in homebrew territory.
Fundamentally changing the rules is absolutely homebrew territory, and if this whole thread starts with the premise that you're not allowed to use the Leadership feat, then this whole thread needs to be moved to the homebrew forum.
Frankly, if you have let's say six PCs each with a cohort that they actually bring along adventuring, combat slows down to unplayable. It shouldn't take allowing something that makes the game so much unfun that the players decide they're going to fire up the XBox instead.
So do you guys ban necromancers as well? How about Druids, are they banned? Summoners? Antipaladins? What's the difference between these and someone with leadership?
When my playgroup rolls "heavy" (meaning everyone showed up to the game that night and everyone's bringing all their minions) we look like this:
Bard+Cohort (leaves the followers to tend the pirate ship)
Necromancer+Undead+Cohort(summoner)+cohort's Pokemon
AntiPaladin+Feindish Servant
Druid+Awakened Animal+Liveoak+3 Treants (also summons in combat)
Monk
Wizard
Barbarian
Fighter
The most we ever have is 7 of the above because 1 is GMing. We make out just fine, with some slight tweaks to the initiative rules, and we're a little more open about the monster stats so we can let more than one player go at a time. But more often than not we've only got four players that night, so the minions are welcome party padding.
But lets take a second look at the above party makeup. 8 PCs. 8 NPCs. Only 2 of the NPCs are from leadership. So striking leadership from our game would reduce our max party size by 13.5%. Is it really worth nuking Leadership for a 13.5% reduction in party size? Meh, to each his own I guess.
Pathfinder doles out NPC "followers" like candy to a lot of classes. Why strip them from Bards and Paladins, who by all rights deserve "followers" more than most of the rest of the classes do? Doesn't make sense. Also, wonder why everyone didn't take Leadership? Because they used CHA as a dump stat! Funny how "game balance" tends to "balance" out that way once you put it into practice.
And whining about CHA being underpowered when you've nuked it's primary power balance with homebrew is especially silly.
@beej67
Your premise for Leadership and Charisma falls flat in the face by how easy it is to have a maximum level cohort with 5 Charisma. The higher Charisma then only enables more followers - which is hardly a uber-powerful feature of the feat.
There are both traits and items, as well as several roleplay related aspects that ensure the Leadership score is through the roof.
12th level character (example) with a 5 CHA and leadership has a base score of 9. He would need a +7 leadership to get a max level cohort. Most you can get off the environmental tables is +5, and that's presuming your party A) has a castle and B) doesn't move from it, and C) no previous cohorts have died, and D) no followers have died, which is really hard to manage when they're squishy. Nobody's going to make the 5 CHA Leadership Guy.
.
..
...
....
.....
I was walking past your window when I heard mention of a matter that I found most fascinating, namely that of comparing a character who, as they say, 'dumps' Charisma in favour of Intelligence in order to acquire skill points with which to compensate for any deficiencies resulting from the aforementioned Charisma 'dumping', to one who decides to invest directly in the Charisma ability score itself.
The main drive of the discussion seemed to revolve around how, with adequate skill point location, one could compensate for a less than desirable Charisma score by investing in such skills as Diplomacy, Bluff and Intimidate.
While I acknowledge the wisdom of such an observation I do believe I can contribute towards the benefits of building a character who undertakes the aforementioned investiture in the Charisma ability score.
To my mind, Charisma is a passive statistic until actively utilised in the manner of a Charisma-based skill, such as Bluff, Diplomacy and Intimidate.
While a character with a low Charisma score can certainly have comparative skill-check bonuses to one who has invested Charisma, I would argue that such a character must constantly be taking action to utilise their skills in order to do so.
On the contrary, a character with a high Charisma score could enjoy numerous benefits, adjudicated by the DM, while investing comparatively less time and effort.
If you would follow an example, please consider both characters, one who has invested in Charisma as a stat while the other has a low Charisma score but has invested in Charisma-based skills.
Both characters are walking to market. As they travel, both acquire an apple from a child.
The character with the naturally high Charisma score is given the apple by the child without actively attempting to influence the child in any manner. The character with the low Charisma who invested in Charisma-based skills receives the apple after actively attempting to influence the child.
To summarise, while both characters can benefit from Charisma, one can enjoy many benefits obtained passively while the other must invest time and effort to enjoy that same or similair benefits.
Thank you for your time and patience and may you all live long happy lives.
Yours sincerely,
P.S - You can stuff your disagreements up your dark chambers!
P.P.S - You may keep the brick.
::
Great post BF :)
12th level character (example) with a 5 CHA and leadership has a base score of 9. He would need a +7 leadership to get a max level cohort. Most you can get off the environmental tables is +5, and that's presuming your party A) has a castle and B) doesn't move from it, and C) no previous cohorts have died, and D) no followers have died, which is really hard to manage when they're squishy. Nobody's going to make the 5 CHA Leadership Guy.@beej67
Your premise for Leadership and Charisma falls flat in the face by how easy it is to have a maximum level cohort with 5 Charisma. The higher Charisma then only enables more followers - which is hardly a uber-powerful feature of the feat.
There are both traits and items, as well as several roleplay related aspects that ensure the Leadership score is through the roof.
At 12th level the highest cohort you can get is level 10 which requires a mere +5 to leadership. There are a potential +4 from reputation, +2 from stronghold, +1 from trait, +1 to +3 from buying a +Charisma item.
The character has no significant trouble getting his level 10 cohort.
He's going to buy a +6 CHA item to bump his dump stat, a castle, not go adventuring (-1), and never has a follower die (-1).
Okay. *shrug* He can have fun sitting at home with his cohort.
Kingmaker (arguably a great place to have the Leadership feat), is a good example of how this can happen.
You make a kingdom... specifically, you can even get a castle. You need to spend a week in the town doing stuff there to get any improvements.
So yeah, you can still be totally part of adventures with a castle.
Also: put all your followers to work in your castle or in your town. Why they need to be dying at the front lines with you I have no idea. There can be plenty of benefit of having lots of low level experts running around.
Also, the game kind of assumes you are taking leadership roles, even if you have 5 Cha, having a high Str/Dex Royal Assassin with low Cha isn't unheard of.
There you go, a ready-made Pathfinder AP that allows everything you are talking about.
We stopped using Leadership because of Cleric + Shield Other. It's a cheap effective way to double your HP, gain +1 AC and Saves, and gain free renewable healing and buffs without expending an action on your turn. Name a summoned creature or animal companion that can match that?
That's actually the reason I ban Leadership in my games. You want an army? Earn it through roleplay.
I can't see this as being a useful point for this discussion. The game has positive uses for Charisma but if it's banned, you really shouldn't be complaining that nobody has a use for it. If you handled all damage done to a character through role play, would you complain if someone dumped their Constitution score? Should you be able to do so with a straight face or have you contributed to your own problem?
He's going to buy a +6 CHA item to bump his dump stat, a castle, not go adventuring (-1), and never has a follower die (-1).
Okay. *shrug* He can have fun sitting at home with his cohort.
Err.. wait what?
The things for followers and the things for cohorts are compleatly different. Admittedly that means he doesn't gain a +2 for strong hold.
I can't see this as being a useful point for this discussion. The game has positive uses for Charisma but if it's banned, you really shouldn't be complaining that nobody has a use for it. If you handled all damage done to a character through role play, would you complain if someone dumped their Constitution score? Should you be able to do so with a straight face or have you contributed to your own problem?
While leadership is great, unless it comes for free, I don't see it being something that totally makes cha a stat on par with the others.
Cha now gives initiative? That sounds odder than using Charisma for Will saves...and my games use Charisma for Will saves.
Actually in 3.5 there was a feat for using cha as will saves.
But here is something from the gnome book...
Excitable: You demand that everything must happen
right now, no matter what, and are too impatient to wait
for everyone else to catch up. You finish people’s sentences,
blurt out the punch lines to slowly-told jokes, rarely make
plans, and leap headlong into anything that looks like it
might get interesting. While this has sometimes gotten
you in trouble, it’s also trained you to start moving a
split second before everyone else, and that’s saved your
hide a few times as well
It increase your initiative.. To me at least that is all cha.
There's a feat in the campaign setting - Noble Scion (War) - that let's you use Cha instead of Dex for initiative.
Again, so why is dumping char a problem?
It's fine if a Paladin dumps is wisdom, but it's not fine if a fighter dumps is char?
I always (or mostly) play charisma characters, but I don't see why a GM should force a player to do it.
I think the problem here is that Charisma has little absolute meaning other than be relevant for a handful of classes: Strength = damage, to-hit, carrying capacity, etc vs Charisma = social skills and UMD.
Or to put it another way: it should be a decision to dump charisma, not a choice. (Cryptic way to describe it, but there you have it)
|
I think the problem here is that Charisma has little absolute meaning other than be relevant for a handful of classes: Strength = damage, to-hit, carrying capacity, etc vs Charisma = social skills and UMD.
Or to put it another way: it should be a decision to dump charisma, not a choice. (Cryptic way to describe it, but there you have it)
Since some RPG's have characters interacting with NPC's in social environments, and not just 100% board game style hack and slash, having characters with some social skill (even if it means that the 2 skill-point per level fighter has to have some cha to help that), helps.
Also, encouraging players to RP out their stats is good. Charisma, per the book, represents "a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance". So, a low charisma fighter, may be a slob, brashly ordering people around with slang names ("You, stumpy, get over there and defend that door!" when dealing with the dwarf for example), or too quiet and shy to actually speak up when they have a good idea for tactics. Either way, this should be role played out and have it's bonuses, penalties in game.
Personally, I find the game much more interesting when the party chats with each other, in character, both in combat and out. It fleshes out both the characters, and the story.
Min/maxing is fine, people do that in real life. You, as a real person, are more likely to get a job that you are good at then a job that you suck at. But if all you are worried about in an RPG is the rules, you are missing out on the point of RPG's. It is better to describe what you want to happen, and then figure out if the rules support it (or how to bend the rules to support it) than it is to figure out what the rules will allow you to do and go with it.
Again, so why is dumping char a problem?
It's fine if a Paladin dumps is wisdom, but it's not fine if a fighter dumps is char?
I always (or mostly) play charisma characters, but I don't see why a GM should force a player to do it.
Its a problem because (as I've been told) Paizo thinks its a problem. And then they start making classes and the like to try to improve the use of cha, while not actually "fixing" cha.
Its a problem because (as I've been told) Paizo thinks its a problem.
They should quit homebrewing leadership feat then.
:)
I recently posted on this on 10letter - maybe this could work as a means to make Charisma more relevant for everybody. What do you think?
I recently posted on this on 10letter - maybe this could work as a means to make Charisma more relevant for everybody. What do you think?
Lots of book-keeping indeed, but hell, ain't it cool!
Again, so why is dumping char a problem?
It's fine if a Paladin dumps is wisdom, but it's not fine if a fighter dumps is char?
I always (or mostly) play charisma characters, but I don't see why a GM should force a player to do it.
Its a problem because (as I've been told) Paizo thinks its a problem.
Not true. Check out the Iconics.
Harsk - Male dwarf ranger 11
STATISTICS: Str 14, Dex 20, Con 16, Int 10, Wis 16, Cha 6.
My bold. If you have a problem when players dump char say so, but don't say paizo have a problem. Optimizing a character isn't a problem, but creating characters that can't get THEIR job done is. Punishing players for creating viable characters is even more of a problem.
And then they start making classes and the like to try to improve the use of cha, while not actually "fixing" cha.
I don't undertand what you mean, but I think Paizo have done a great job.
Reading through this thread has been interesting, and I just want to Chime in with one thing: if charisma is such a dump stat, how come in the game I'm playing now nobody has a charisma less than 15? It just so happens all of us are playing classes that depend on it to be effective (oracle, sorcerer, bard, and paladin). In my book, for as many classes that do use charisma, even if not the broad general uses like saves and such, it does alright for a game like this.
I recently posted on this on 10letter - maybe this could work as a means to make Charisma more relevant for everybody. What do you think?
That's a REALLY slick thought, LK. At first run-through, I like in an awful lot. Lemme think some more about abuse/unforseen down sides and I'll get back to you if I think of anything egregious. Regarding bookkeeping, since each player would have to keep track of his own character's modified effects & durations, I don't see it having a huge impact on DM difficulty or on speed of game play, so that particular concern isn't, I think, all that major an issue.
Reading through this thread has been interesting, and I just want to Chime in with one thing: if charisma is such a dump stat, how come in the game I'm playing now nobody has a charisma less than 15? It just so happens all of us are playing classes that depend on it to be effective (oracle, sorcerer, bard, and paladin). In my book, for as many classes that do use charisma, even if not the broad general uses like saves and such, it does alright for a game like this.
Counterpoint: why do all fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. have a Charisma of 7 or less? And given that, why not make it binary (yes/no) rather than a range of scores?
Because DM's keep inflicting 15pb's on the characters while demanding they have no dump stat?
-S
I recently posted on this on 10letter - maybe this could work as a means to make Charisma more relevant for everybody. What do you think?
I think I'd be a bit concerned with how it would negatively affect animal companions, most of which have lower Charismas.
EDIT: Plus, paladin buffs might be a bit out of control. I'd have to really look at how level-dependent their spells are...
Same with cleric self buffs.
Because DM's keep inflicting 15pb's on the characters while demanding they have no dump stat?
Heh. That's another issue entirely -- what people view as a "reasonable baseline" of stats is subject to a VERY wide range. Coming from a "roll 4d6, drop lowest, for 6 stats" background, the Elite array (15,14,13,12,10,8) is pretty reasonable to me for a PC. I've heard of other groups that go with 18,18,18,14,14,14 and they consider that to be fair.
I find it interesting that many people consider a "heroic" point-buy to be a minimum, and consider an "epic" point-buy to be normal, meaning that Paizo's fan base might be a bit out of touch with the designers' assumptions regarding attribute scores.
Reading through this thread has been interesting, and I just want to Chime in with one thing: if charisma is such a dump stat, how come in the game I'm playing now nobody has a charisma less than 15? It just so happens all of us are playing classes that depend on it to be effective (oracle, sorcerer, bard, and paladin). In my book, for as many classes that do use charisma, even if not the broad general uses like saves and such, it does alright for a game like this.Counterpoint: why do all fighters, rogues, wizards, etc. have a Charisma of 7 or less? And given that, why not make it binary (yes/no) rather than a range of scores?
Because their set of skills and powers don't demand charisma most of the time, I thought that was the idea. Charisma functions as an attribute because a binary mechanic would require an understanding of said mechanic that differentiates a mental ability from other ones seemingly arbitrarily. Plus, compatibility from 3.x to PF would be nearly impossible without also arbitrarily assigning scores to all pcs, npcs, monsters and what-have-you that would not otherwise have them.
While all who dump charisma would have about the same score, those who don't won't have the same score almost certainly.
I recently posted on this on 10letter - maybe this could work as a means to make Charisma more relevant for everybody. What do you think?
I think I'd be a bit concerned with how it would negatively affect animal companions, most of which have lower Charismas.
EDIT: Plus, paladin buffs might be a bit out of control. I'd have to really look at how level-dependent their spells are...
Same with cleric self buffs.
The ones that would benefit from it most would obviously be oracles and sorcerers, followed by bards and paladins. I think in each case it's quite okay.
The best benefit for the paladin is that at level 4 he can possibly cast Divine Favor and get a +2 instead of a +1 due to the caster-level bonus. Comparing a bard and a fighter, the bard's haste spell might last 9 rounds on the bard and only 6 rounds on the fighter. I think that's okay too.
At the bottom-line it is a nice bonus to have, if you have the Charisma - but it isn't crazy good. Getting 1d8 + 3 from potions of cure light instead of 1d8 + 1 is definitely nice. I hope it is enough for people to consider not taking 7 in Charisma just because it let's them push their Strength from 15 to 16.
Scenario
Party Make up
Fighter - Cha 7
Rogue - Cha 7
Wizard - Cha 7
Cleric - Cha 16
You basically make the cleric less effective in that party. So how's the cleric going to contribute? It's not the rest of the party that suffers, its the Cleric whose spells are suddenly less effective. I know that would be just one more reason to NOT play a cleric. Having your spells muted by other characters just doesn't seem to work for me. The negative should not rely on other characters or effects. The other ability scores only impact you, regardless of what the other players are doing. Other class abilities are not impacted by choices other characters make (at least I don't believe so).
Scenario
Party Make up
Fighter - Cha 7
Rogue - Cha 7
Wizard - Cha 7
Cleric - Cha 16You basically make the cleric less effective in that party. So how's the cleric going to contribute? It's not the rest of the party that suffers, its the Cleric whose spells are suddenly less effective. I know that would be just one more reason to NOT play a cleric.
Or at least to not play a cleric in a party full of whiny emo psychological misfits. The same cleric would do very well in a party of self-actualized people with strong, well-integrated personalities. A chain only being as strong as the weakest link, and all that jazz.
It's just more work for the healers and buffers is all. Instead of one cure light healing the low Cha character, I now have to do it twice. Seems to impact my role as party healer more than it should. Sure I could be a dink player and not provide the additional healing to the party fighter who protects me from getting killed by all the baddies, but what good does that accomplish. It's just more work for the caster, who has enough limited resources as it is. The system might work fine in a free-for-all format, but not in a cooperative game.
Prerequisite: Charisma 13
Benefit: Whenever you receive healing from a spell, spell-like ability or supernatural ability, add your Charisma bonus (if any) to the amount received.
There you go.
First question) Have you people read this:
Generating Ability Scores
There are a number of different methods used to generate
ability scores. Each of these methods gives a different level
of f lexibility and randomness to character generation.
Racial modifiers (adjustments made to your ability
scores due to your character’s race—see Chapter 2) are
applied after the scores are generated.Standard: Roll 4d6, discard the lowest die result, and
add the three remaining results together. Record this total
and repeat the process until six numbers are generated.
Assign these totals to your ability scores as you see fit.
This way of Generating Ability Scores is the standard way of Generating Ability Scores. It will, most of the time, generate at least one negative ability score. You might end dump with an ability score of 5 or 4 or even 3. So if I get 4 should I as a fighter use 4 as Wisdom, Int or Char? Or perhaps con?
In our gaming group the problem isn't optimizing and powerful gamers. The problem is the opposite. We had a hafling druid with str 12, dex 16, con 14, int 10, wis 14, char 16. It was fun for 4 or perhaps levels.
Optimizing is good - power gaming isn't.
My wizard is absent minded so his has a wisdom score of 8 (or7).
He has spent most of his time reading books and not socializing with people so he isn't good with people, Char 7.
He's doesn't lift anything heavier than books, so his STR is 8.
Rest is dex, con and Int.
Logical, sure. Viable, sure.
Second question) Char 8 is fine but char 7 isn't? Define dumping a stat. I suspect all you people who are upset won't answer this question, but it will be interesting to see the answers if you got the guts to be honest.
Third question) Now again. How is it ok if a Bard, Paladin, Oracle, Sorcerer, Wizard dump their WIS but not ok if a barbarian, fighter, rogue or ranger dumps his Char? Classes with good will saves can afford dump their WIS. Classes that don't rely on charisma can afford to dump their Char. I've played rogue four times. One of them had Char 8, one had 10 the other two had char 12 or higher. In 3.5 search was based on INT now it's WIS. So now a rogue can dump his INT too. Are you people fine If the rogue dump his int?
Forth question) Have you read this: "Creatures of animal-level instinct have Intelligence scores of 1 or 2. Any creature capable of understanding speech has a score of at least 3." So you can play a character with INT 3 and you can play a character with CHAR 3. Char 7 or Int 7 isn't extreme, it's just below average. I would go as far as saying that Int 7 or char 7 is what a lot of the ordinary people in Golarion have. Thoughts?
Fifth question ) Are you forcing the wizard in your group to use a Great sword and bash up doors using his strength? My wizard isn't strong so the fighter carries all his stuff. The fighter is stupid so the wizard helps him when it comes to tricky questions regarding Arcana or Religion. Both of them let the Cleric do the talking because the cleric is good with people. Some are good with magic, some are not. Some are good with swords, some are not. Some are good with people, some are not. Must all characters be good at everything?
Sixth question) What is a dumped stat? Define dumping a stat. Char 8 is fine but char 7 isn't?
Finally: All or at least most of Paizo's Iconics have 'dump stats' or negative stats and Paizo have again and again pointed out their Iconics aren't optimized. If they did optimize characters they too would have dump stats that fit the class / role. Depending on how you define dump all of Paizo's Iconics have dump stats. Flawed characters are fun as James Jacobs says.
Scenario
Party Make up
Fighter - Cha 7
Rogue - Cha 7
Wizard - Cha 7
Cleric - Cha 16You basically make the cleric less effective in that party. So how's the cleric going to contribute? It's not the rest of the party that suffers, its the Cleric whose spells are suddenly less effective. I know that would be just one more reason to NOT play a cleric. Having your spells muted by other characters just doesn't seem to work for me. The negative should not rely on other characters or effects. The other ability scores only impact you, regardless of what the other players are doing. Other class abilities are not impacted by choices other characters make (at least I don't believe so).
Firstly, supernatural effects (like channeling) are not modified. Secondly, it is not the end of the world if your level 3 cleric heals you for 2d8 + 1 instead of 2d8 + 3. On himself he'll be healing 2d8 + 6, so he's still got plenty of incentive to play his cleric.
Everybody knows the effect of Charisma. If they are willing to play a 7 Charisma character in such a situation, then at least they do so because they feel it benefits them in some way.
Firstly, supernatural effects (like channeling) are not modified. Secondly, it is not the end of the world if your level 3 cleric heals you for 2d8 + 1 instead of 2d8 + 3. On himself he'll be healing 2d8 + 6, so he's still got plenty of incentive to play his cleric.
Everybody knows the effect of Charisma. If they are willing to play a 7 Charisma character in such a situation, then at least they do so because they feel it benefits them in some way.
It's not about the character with the low Cha, is about the character that has to waste two healing spells to heal him now.
And I certainly don't play a cleric so I can heal myself. I play one so I can heal the party, as is my role as the party cleric.
How does my wizard having a 7 str negatively impact the party fighter? Is he now required to use up twice as many resources to do the same job because I have a low ability score?
I like the idea of what you're doing, but I don't like the idea of having to waste resources when currently I don't. I don't like having to cast haste twice because it ran out quicker for some of the party because someone rolled a 6 and put it in Cha, and the big bad is still alive and kicking. I don't like having to cast Cha enhancing spells on some of the characters before I cast other spells to make sure they last long enough.
Ability scores should modify things you do, not things other people do.