|
I'm going to put out there that someone with Cha 16 isn't likely to hang out with a pack of people with Cha 7, if anyone remembers highschool? Attractive/charismatic people tend to travel in packs. This doesn't really too much change as time moves on, it's just less noticeable as the attractive/charismatic people need the technical skills of others, and they don't always get to pick the appearance of the people they work with. Not that anyone could tell, because the people with the technical skills tend to stand in the back, or off-stage altogether.
Nice post Zark.
Optimizing is good - power gaming isn't.
The whole thread, or much of it anyway, seems to be under this impression, but nobody's defined these terms in such a way that they're clear and distinct.
What's the difference between optimizing and power gaming, and why is one good and the other bad?
I'm going to put out there that someone with Cha 16 isn't likely to hang out with a pack of people with Cha 7, if anyone remembers highschool?
I remember a whole lot of cheerleaders who'd dumped INT to max CHA hanging out with a whole lot of football players who'd dumped CHA to jack STR and CON.
I'm going to put out there that someone with Cha 16 isn't likely to hang out with a pack of people with Cha 7, if anyone remembers highschool?I remember a whole lot of cheerleaders who'd dumped INT to max CHA hanging out with a whole lot of football players who'd dumped CHA to jack STR and CON.
I think you will find that if you ever talked to them, their charisma was in the negatives as well.
I think you will find that if you ever talked to them, their charisma was in the negatives as well.I'm going to put out there that someone with Cha 16 isn't likely to hang out with a pack of people with Cha 7, if anyone remembers highschool?I remember a whole lot of cheerleaders who'd dumped INT to max CHA hanging out with a whole lot of football players who'd dumped CHA to jack STR and CON.
No way dude. Miss America may be a failure of a conversationalist but the competition is fundamentally about Charisma.
|
I'm going to put out there that someone with Cha 16 isn't likely to hang out with a pack of people with Cha 7, if anyone remembers highschool?
That was my thought, when I saw the Kingmaker thread, where the OP asked if it was feasible to stick a high-Cha cohort on the throne, since the players just wanted to go adventuring.
IMO, a high Cha character is a rampant egotist, who, quite frankly, shouldn't be eligible as a cohort at all.
Being someone else's flunky does seem to imply a total lack of self-esteem, which would be picked up on by the citizens, who would see this person mouthing someone else's policies and denounce them as a sock-puppet.
If the cohort were to have such a sky-high Cha and relevant skill ranks to avoid this pitfall, and make their policies sound like their own ideas, it wouldn't be long before they bought into their own publicity, and began to believe it to be the truth.
They would consider themselves the master, and the PCs to be their servants.
"DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM!?"
"YOU DARE TO SPEAK THAT WAY BEFORE YOUR KING!?"
"I MADE YOU WHO YOU ARE, AND I CAN BREAK YOU!!!"
That was my thought, when I saw the Kingmaker thread, where the OP asked if it was feasible to stick a high-Cha cohort on the throne, since the players just wanted to go adventuring.
Read Dashiell Hammett's The Glass Key -- the boss is a charismatic, but relatively inept guy, and the main character (Ned Beaumont) is the adventurer/brains of the operation. It works out well for them. I, personally, IRL do all the technical work, contingency planning, and field operations for a much more charismatic manager.
Actually there is already a cha based infiltrator. Its called a bard.How does that Order of the Stick comic go again?
Elan: "MAKE MAKE MAKE (sings w/ banjo) .. MAKE THAT SNEAK ROLL!"
Someone's got to have a link to that comic.
I believe you're thinking of, "HEY GUYS, I GOT A 4 ON MY STEALTH CHECK! GUYS! I GOT A 4!"
and bluff bluff bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre
Actually there is already a cha based infiltrator. Its called a bard.How does that Order of the Stick comic go again?
Elan: "MAKE MAKE MAKE (sings w/ banjo) .. MAKE THAT SNEAK ROLL!"
Someone's got to have a link to that comic.
I believe you're thinking of, "HEY GUYS, I GOT A 4 ON MY STEALTH CHECK! GUYS! I GOT A 4!"
and bluff bluff bluff bluff bluff the stupid ogre
That's what happens when you dump wisdom for an 18 cha..
Course this is wear acting is the most powerful perform skill. All you gotta do is "play a character" and walla, you give bonuses to people.
Trying to be a stealthy group? go all generic secret agent, hand singles and all. basically solid snake that stuff up.
Trying to bluff an ogre? Well that depends on the situation truthfully..
Elan also didn't take http://www.d20pfsrd.com/extras/collaborators/work-area/new-classes/lion-bla de as his PRC.
IMO, a high Cha character is a rampant egotist, who, quite frankly, shouldn't be eligible as a cohort at all.
Being someone else's flunky does seem to imply a total lack of self-esteem, which would be picked up on by the citizens, who would see this person mouthing someone else's policies and denounce them as a sock-puppet.
Nothing about charisma suggests the person with it has to be a rampant egotist. A cohort doesn't have to lack self-esteem either -- it's a mechanic to allow for such things has:
1. Having your kid brother coming along.
2. Having a squire you are training to be a knight.
3. An apprentice.
4. A spouse.
5. A best friend that won't let you 'go it alone'.
Nothing about Cohort suggests that they are some flunky. In fact the very word cohort has a much different meaning than that.
Nice post Zark.
Optimizing is good - power gaming isn't.The whole thread, or much of it anyway, seems to be under this impression, but nobody's defined these terms in such a way that they're clear and distinct.
What's the difference between optimizing and power gaming, and why is one good and the other bad?
Good points.
What's the difference between optimizing and power gaming? I have no real good answer, but I try to give you some sort of answer.The difference is attitude. Yes I know the answer isn't great but I think that's what it boils down to. An optimizer try to optimize his/her character concept, the power gamer only tries to optimize the damage output. This is not always true, but often.
The power gamer is all about numbers. He would never let his half-elf fighter pick skill focus Appraise just because it fits his character he would take skill focus perception.
An optimizer playing a washbuckler fighter would try to make the best swashbuckler he could. A power gamer playing a fighter would never play a swashbuckler. He would play a TWF or THW fighter. The fun thing is optimizers often create and play more well built/viable characters than the power gamer.
Another way of putting it:
Optimizer = Role-playing + roll playing
Power gamer = Roll playing.
A lot of the time the optimizer is just a power gamer not wanting to be called a power gamer. ;-)
Course this is wear acting
Emperor's New Clothes?
Five interesting questions (2 and 6 are the same question).
Yes, isn't it cute ;-)
I'm a rolled stats guy. Exclusively. Both as DM and Player. I have several issues with the point buy system presented (stat dumping is the least of them).
Well take KaeYoss advice. House rule.
For me a dump stat is where my lowest roll goes.
Again KaeYoss posts come into mind. "Well, you can't expect that someone will put his worst roll into the attribute he needs the most."
Cha as a dump stat is not much of an issue in the games I am involved in.
Good, then we both don't find Cha as a dump a problem.
Why do I care about this discussion?
Because I feel it may result in ideas that add something to the game. I see making Cha generally more useful with regard to game mechanics for everyone, not just specific niches as a good thing for the game.
Cha is just as useful to a fighter, as Str is to a wizard, or Wis to a paladin and still all attributes are very useful. Charisma too is very useful, read KaeYoss posts again. Charisma is especially useful if you are a Paladin, Oracle, Sorcerer, Bard or any character that find use in charisma.
As far as characters having flaws, I draw a line between flaw and disability. That line for me as at -2 modifier. Below that the character has a clear disability. At -2 the character is borderline, but capable of functioning in a heroic capacity. YMMV.
So char 8 is ok, but char 7 cheating? Here we clearly don't agree. I guess the person at Paizo who created Harsk don't agree either.
I'm thank you for your answers. Me and you don't agree on some things, that's ok. I still think you're wrong though :PAnyway, I think KaeYoss posts pretty much sums up what I think.
Listen to Zark. He seems to know what he's talking about (and I'm not just saying that. I'm saying that because he agrees with me so much in that post! ;-))
Not every character or character concept needs charisma. Just like not everyone needs strength. Or intelligence. Or anything. The other three are a bit more useful because so much depends on them, but that shouldn't be overdone. If every character needs to have a decent value in every attribute, things get too weird.
And purchase systems (whether the PF purchase system, 3e-style point buy or anything else) Have the big advantage that they allow you to play a character without a bad attribute.
Rolling your attributes can mean that you're stuck with a 7, or a 3. Personally, I wouldn't consider that character playable.
Of course, many rolling systems are constructed so that the chance of getting bad results is rather slim, but the chance for really good ones (i.e. stuff that is beyond even what is possible with PF epic purchase) are really good.
The thing isn't that every character should need charisma - it's that those that want charismatic characters (that don't have supernatural powers based on charisma) might feel shafted compared to those that do. Yeah, we're supposed to optimize a fair deal - that's why there should be a noticeable benefit for every character with every attribute.
If a player wants to build a wise paladin, he'll benefit greatly from even better will saves, and better perception. Sure, he might be better of with higher Str, Cha, or Dex - but he'll feel he's got something going for it.
The charismatic *anything that doesn't have supernatural powers based on charisma* will get a bonus to his social skills - but unless he has a crapload of skillpoints and nowhere to put them, he'll still be less socially skilled than someone who put those points into intelligence.
The wizard with low strength is kind of similar that - he gets more or less no benefit from high strength. He can carry more stuff and are better with melee touch attacks, yay. However, there IS a difference in that this is a classical stereotype and that you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who actually wants to play a strong wizard that doesn't go into melee. If he does, he'll need whatever strength he can get (though he'll still suck).
If the bonus to social skills where large enough that throwing skill points at the problem won't help, the charismatic character WOULD feel that his investment has earnt him something. If the bluff bonus was ranks + 3*Cha + misc, then the Int 14 couldn't outbluff the Cha 14 for a LONG time. However, multiplying that kind of mods is wonky.
tl;dr: Players sometimes want to play charismatic non-casters and thus, there's a problem when Int is better at what charisma does than charisma is.
Listen to Zark. He seems to know what he's talking about (and I'm not just saying that. I'm saying that because he agrees with me so much in that post! ;-))
Not every character or character concept needs charisma. Just like not everyone needs strength. Or intelligence. Or anything. The other three are a bit more useful because so much depends on them, but that shouldn't be overdone. If every character needs to have a decent value in every attribute, things get too weird.
And purchase systems (whether the PF purchase system, 3e-style point buy or anything else) Have the big advantage that they allow you to play a character without a bad attribute.
Rolling your attributes can mean that you're stuck with a 7, or a 3. Personally, I wouldn't consider that character playable.
Of course, many rolling systems are constructed so that the chance of getting bad results is rather slim, but the chance for really good ones (i.e. stuff that is beyond even what is possible with PF epic purchase) are really good.
yes not every concept needs..
But is it really even that hard of decision to dump cha if you have nothing that runs off it?
My wizard don't need str. But that doesn't mean I'm going to take a 7, then go venerable so I have a 3/4 str so I can get the most I possibly can in int.
If it was reversed, And I dropped down to 7 cha, took dwarf and took something that was the opposite of age effects, I'd have very little reason not to.
But is it really even that hard of decision to dump cha if you have nothing that runs off it?
My wizard don't need str. But that doesn't mean I'm going to take a 7, then go venerable so I have a 3/4 str so I can get the most I possibly can in int.
I would dump STR with a wizard every bit as much as I'd dump CHA as a fighter. In fact, in a properly run game the fighter runs into more CHA situations than the Wizard runs into STR situations. Moreso if I'm allowed to take leadership, because then CHA has a pretty important use for my fighter.
What's the difference between optimizing and power gaming? I have no real good answer, but I try to give you some sort of answer.
The difference is attitude. Yes I know the answer isn't great but I think that's what it boils down to. An optimizer try to optimize his/her character concept, the power gamer only tries to optimize the damage output. This is not always true, but often.
Presuming that definition sticks, it seems terribly futile to me to try and write power-gaming out of a rule system. If it's entirely based on attitude, the attitude is going to be there no matter what the rules say.
I mean, the closest you're going to come for what you're looking for is issuing a yellow card for ungentlemanly conduct or something.
|
|
That was my thought, when I saw the Kingmaker thread, where the OP asked if it was feasible to stick a high-Cha cohort on the throne, since the players just wanted to go adventuring.
Read Dashiell Hammett's The Glass Key -- the boss is a charismatic, but relatively inept guy, and the main character (Ned Beaumont) is the adventurer/brains of the operation. It works out well for them. I, personally, IRL do all the technical work, contingency planning, and field operations for a much more charismatic manager.
Doesn't that prove my point?
In your own work, you are subordinate to a person with more people skills and less technical skill.
That arrangement may have been set up by a person senior to both of you, but even if it had been a partnership, it would have gravitated that way over time.
People with high Cha will consider themselves to be the boss of any relationship, and the do-ers of the work to be the underlings.
Sometimes, a practical person may be their own boss, but realise they need someone to handle the business matters they'd rather not do; an accountant, a solicitor, a manager, an agent.
Even though they are the boss, they pay the wages, it never ceases to amaze me how often the boss buys into the employee's BS, and takes on a subservient role.
I deal with the inevitable results of this every day.
|
|
Nothing about charisma suggests the person with it has to be a rampant egotist.
Except the definition of the stat.
Str = muscle. High Str describes a muscular character.
Cha = Ego. High Cha describes an egotist.
A strong wolf will always attempt to exert his dominance over the rest of the pack to become alpha wolf.
Since we humans have developed laws and customs that dissuade people from maiming each other, a highly-charismatic person must play by more subtle rules, but the aim is the same. To force the world to acknowledge them as their rightful leader, to demand tribute in gold and mates, to drive their enemies (ie everyone with less fire in their soul) before them and hear the lamentation of their women.
A human will no more accept orders from someone they despise as inferior (ie lower Cha), than an alpha wolf would cower before the runt of the pack.
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.
I can only say you play cleric a whole lot different than I do.
In fact, in a properly run game the fighter runs into more CHA situations than the Wizard runs into STR situations.
I don't know about that. There's an awful lot of STR drain spells/monsters/poisons/etc. -- and running out of STR is likely to be fatal in a way that blowing most CHR checks isn't.
Which isn't to say I wouldn't dump STR as a wizard/sorcerer, but every time I've done so I've had "my low STR almost got me killed there" moments, whereas I can remember very few "my low CHR almost got me killed there" moments.
Except the definition of the stat.
Str = muscle. High Str describes a muscular character.
Cha = Ego. High Cha describes an egotist.
A strong wolf will always attempt to exert his dominance over the rest of the pack to become alpha wolf.
Since we humans have developed laws and customs that dissuade people from maiming each other, a highly-charismatic person must play by more subtle rules, but the aim is the same. To force the world to acknowledge them as their rightful leader, to demand tribute in gold and mates, to drive their enemies (ie everyone with less fire in their soul) before them and hear the lamentation of their women.
A human will no more accept orders from someone they despise as inferior (ie lower Cha), than an alpha wolf would cower before the runt of the pack.
Theres's really no surprise that your players dump Charisma, if that's how you run it. Charismatic people are bound by the laws of the universe to be egotistical. Who would want to deal with that?
|
|
Theres's really no surprise that your players dump Charisma, if that's how you run it.
My players haven't dumped Cha.
We rolled stats, so most people got 10s at minimum. The one awful stat I can remember is a 6 Int, which has gone to the guy with the highest (18+items) Cha...
Who needs to be right, when you know you are right?
Charismatic people are bound by the laws of the universe to be egotistical.
Yes. Yes, they are.
It's almost as if it were a stat that governed force of personality.They don't have to be a jerk about it (you may be inferring I said that, due to my own real-life low Cha?), they can be any alignment, lawful, good, peaceful, law-abiding.
But the one thing they all have in common is that They. Know. Best.
"These laws are for your own good."
Who would want to deal with that?
Players who want to ignore the whole point of the Kingmaker AP, by the sound of it.
|
A human will no more accept orders from someone they despise as inferior (ie lower Cha), than an alpha wolf would cower before the runt of the pack.
Have you ever worked for a living? Perhaps been in the service? Gone to school?
Much of the time between birth and death is taken up by taking orders from people who are questionably qualified to be giving them...
[I mean, really, parents? Your qualification for telling me what I can and cannot do is that you failed to understand how to work a condom? :)]
Anywho, just as having a bunch of muscles doesn't obligate one to beat up puny kids and take their lunch money, having an abundance of persuasive ability doesn't *require* one to be a manipulative egotistic jerk (although it certainly makes that career choice easier...).
Some muscular people are gentle giants. Some popular people are *nice.*
Your assumption seems to be that anyone who has a physical, social or intellectual advantage is automatically going to use it to bludgeon other people into submission. That might apply to the self-obsessed 'stars' of Jersey Shore (or, yanno, Congress), but doesn't necessarily apply to humanity, in general.
IMO, anyway.
|
|
That's fair enough, I'm just kidding with you.
I just feel like pushing in the other direction, to counter the common belief, that high-Cha NPCs are meek, mild-mannered doormats, with no agenda of their own. Who'll throw themselves on the kindness of any PC strangers who'll offer them a job as their fall-guy.
Not every character or character concept needs charisma. Just like not everyone needs strength. Or intelligence. Or anything.
Yes, but the problem with Charisma isn't that it's not necessary for every character, but that it's largely useless for anyone whose powers aren't specifically based on it. There's nothing wrong with the Wizard dumping Strength or the Fighter dumping Charisma, but there's a problem when everyone but the Cleric dumps Charisma.
The Wizard pays for dumping his Strength score. Other characters should pay for dumping their Charisma.
|
|
The Wizard pays for dumping his Strength score. Other characters should pay for dumping their Charisma.
How do they not pay for it? Their charisma-based skills suffer, and if anything drains charisma, they're doomed. A Cleric pays for dumping Dex. or Int., in much the same way that a Fighter pays for dumping Cha.
That's fair enough, I'm just kidding with you.
I just feel like pushing in the other direction, to counter the common belief, that high-Cha NPCs are meek, mild-mannered doormats, with no agenda of their own. Who'll throw themselves on the kindness of any PC strangers who'll offer them a job as their fall-guy.
Oh I don't mind a couple of strong willed "almost as much of a problem as a help" cohort types -- but I would rather be along with it as a PC than having the GM give it to me that way.
Ok, flipped thru this thread and got the basic idea of what everyone is saying. It's a little long to read the whole thing. Here's how I weigh in.
Firstly, CHA is the most common dump stat. I used to run World Wide D&D events and bi-weekly introduction to D&D for a local comic store. I only rarely saw anyone dump INT first... I few people dumped both.
Secondly, I myself tend to play characters with decent CHA scores. This is because my DM tends to call for Diplomacy checks any time we deal with NPC's. Good role-playing garners a circumstance bonus to this roll. But in the end our characters are the ones talking. No mater how elegant and charismatic I may be, doesn't mater if I'm playing a seven CHA half-orc.
Thirdly, I agree that CHA should influence more of the game than it does. Perhaps having it determine a NPC's starting attitude. After all, as the above entries have demonstrated, everyone judges people by first impressions.
Anyway, hope this helps progress the discussion.
and if anything drains charisma, they're doomed.
But basically nothing in the core game does.
If charisma drain/damage were even 1/10 as common as strength drain/damage I might agree with you.
In fact, in a properly run game the fighter runs into more CHA situations than the Wizard runs into STR situations.I don't know about that. There's an awful lot of STR drain spells/monsters/poisons/etc. -- and running out of STR is likely to be fatal in a way that blowing most CHR checks isn't.
In what I would consider to be a "properly run game" there's a lot more roleplaying in taverns or with wenches or with the law or with the King's Men than there are strength draining monsters. You may see one strength drain monster in 10 levels, but you certainly meet strangers almost every game session.
Which isn't to say I wouldn't dump STR as a wizard/sorcerer, but every time I've done so I've had "my low STR almost got me killed there" moments, whereas I can remember very few "my low CHR almost got me killed there" moments.
"properly run game..."
Ancient Dragon asks you why he shouldn't kill you. His reaction starts as "indifferent." Make a diplomacy check as you speak, so he'll know how to respond.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on how the game is or should be run, admit that we'd probably have a horrible time in each other's games, and call it a day.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on how the game is or should be run, admit that we'd probably have a horrible time in each other's games, and call it a day.
Finally! Someone willing to be rational on a message board! You sir, are a rarity. And raise a valid point, the use of CHA is variable depending on the type of game being played, and the DM running the game. It does not negate the validity this thread, and the question over whether or not CHA should be made more important. But at the moment it would seem that the "dump stat" for any given game depends on the style of game being played.
|
|
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on how the game is or should be run, admit that we'd probably have a horrible time in each other's games, and call it a day.Finally! Someone willing to be rational on a message board! You sir, are a rarity. And raise a valid point, the use of CHA is variable depending on the type of game being played, and the DM running the game. It does not negate the validity this thread, and the question over whether or not CHA should be made more important. But at the moment it would seem that the "dump stat" for any given game depends on the style of game being played.
Not to sound snobbish, but the variability of games has already been mentioned by other posters in this thread.
That being said, I agree with the sentiment. The fact is that, in many games, Charisma is a valuable attribute. I won't say it's overpowered, or that it outshines any of the others, but it definitely has its uses.
In other games, this is not the case. I'm okay with that, to be perfectly honest. I once played a game that had absolutely no roleplaying in it whatsoever. Charisma WAS totally useless in that game.
However, to say that Charisma on the whole is useless is inaccurate. I believe it is assumed that most people will use the skill system as presented, and that most people will use Charisma-based skills, as well as the other skills. If some DM's base NPC reactions off of dialogue and roleplay alone, that's fine. In such games I would even encourage finding ways to make Charisma useful. House-ruling should be encouraged in these scenarios.
My only argument is that in the game, as written, Charisma DOES have a function, and that compared with other attributes it is only found wanting depending on the player and character type, not because the attribute is any less valuable overall.
Presuming that definition sticks, it seems terribly futile to me to try and write power-gaming out of a rule system. If it's entirely based on attitude, the attitude is going to be there no matter what the rules say.
Yes, it's futile to try to write power-gaming out of a rule system.
It can only be dealty with by humans, not rules.It's called human relations or some thing like that ;-)
How do they not pay for it? Their charisma-based skills suffer, and if anything drains charisma, they're doomed. A Cleric pays for dumping Dex. or Int., in much the same way that a Fighter pays for dumping Cha.
The Wizard pays for dumping his Strength score. Other characters should pay for dumping their Charisma.
+1
And let's spell it out: A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious."my bold.
My only argument is that in the game, as written, Charisma DOES have a function, and that compared with other attributes it is only found wanting depending on the player and character type, not because the attribute is any less valuable overall.
+1.
However, to say that Charisma on the whole is useless is inaccurate.
I don't think anyone was ever arguing 'useless' so much as 'mechanically, a fair bit less useful to characters who don't need it for a class feature than the other five stats are to characters who don't need it for a class feature.' and/or, the drawbacks of a low one for such a character are typically easier to compensate for than other stats.
What I'm looking to see added is more ways in which Cha can be more useful across the board. Not so much ways to penalize low Cha. More carrot than stick as it were. In other words I'm hoping to see new applications for Cha outside of social interactions and keying class abilities. Will this stop people choosing to use it as a dump stat? Of course not. But it might encourage more to consider investing in it instead of writing it off. That's the best I can hope for without almost a complete rewrite. I'm not looking for Cha to be a must have stat, just to make it a more attractive option than it currently is for not Cha keyed classes characters.
I don't know why it should be more attractive. Because people don't use it if they don't have too?
You are also forgetting something very important. The Charisma classes are some of the most powerful classes in the game. Boosting the use of charisma would boost these classes to. They would get TOO powerful.
Char is one of the most, if not the most, important attributes in the game if the GM wills it.
I don't know where you are getting the word cheating from. I consider a -2 modifier (6-7) the hard minimum for a viable character, and prefer nothing below a -1. This is my opinion and my house rule. And FYI at a 6 Cha Harsk squeeks in at a -2 modifier.
OK, sorry for reading you wrong.
My point is, there is no big difference between, 7 and 8. One of the advantages using point buy is you won't get character with char 3 or int 3. So let's say we rewrite the rules. The lowest you can go is 8 using PB. I'm sure people would still be upset because people would dump char to 8.I don't find -2 mod to be a disability, but I to find -4 mod, or even -3 a disability, but a disability can be fun. The Oracle as a class is based on the concept of the person having a disability.
This thread is about the use of char and dumping.
The general attitude among those who don't like char dumping is that it is somehow wrong to let players "get away" with dumping char. A very strange attitude. A paladin can dump his wisdom a get away with it, a cleric can't. A fighter can dump his char, a Paladin can't. what is the problem?
I have asked all of you, why is it ok for John the Paladin to dump his wis, but not for Elona the fighter to dump her char?
If there is any Char that gets away with dumping it's the John the Paladin. Add some ranks in perception and then he don't have a problem, but Elona will always be a social retard. Sure she can add ranks to diplomacy, but she won't be given the chance to use that skill because nobody wants to talk to her....if that is the way GM calls it.
But how on earth is GM going to punish John? Should you say: You succeeded on the perception skill, but I don't like it?
Fine as long as we can agree to disagree.
I disagree ;-)
Getting away with dumping? Strange no one talks about Int.
Dumping INT: A lot of people does it. Especially if they play a humans.
A rogue or a ranger dumping his int so he can boost his con to 14. Favored class bonus can now be added to skills and he get one bonus skill point per level since he is human. The rogue still gets 8 skill point and the ranger still get his 6 skill points.
Here is a funny thing. If you play a 2 skill rank per level class 8 int or 7 int will give you the same amount of skill ranks since all creatures are given minimum 1 skill rank per level. If human you add one skill rank and then one more from your favored class bonus. 3 skill ranks per level. It already been establish in other threads that this is indeed legit.
Shouldn't we punish those players that uses this loophole?
Well generally its more useful to have 4-5 skill points than it is to have 3.
As for me, I never dump int. I find that I never have enough skill points as it is.. When I'm taking 18 int and a medium/high class even. Getting lots of +3s is helpful..
But then there is a bunch of stuff I really like as well that runs off int, almost regardless of the class I play. Combat expertise for example.
there isn't a Charimsa expertise line. But there is str, dex, wis and int based feat trees. There should be something charasima based too probably.
You are also forgetting something very important. The Charisma classes are some of the most powerful classes in the game. Boosting the use of charisma would boost these classes to. They would get TOO powerful.
"Would" is a far too strong word; of course it depends on how charisma is changed. Also, the premise that charisma classes are some of the most powerful is debatable. Looking at base classes, we have:
SorcererBard
Paladin
Summoner
That has it as a high priority stack. Also cleric has it as a somewhat useful stat - but as you can see across the boards, several good players opt to drop it for intelligence despite losing channel (because intelligence is more useful generally and channel isn't that good past level 3 or so).
Now, what I'm going to say isn't something I claim as "truth". It's personal opinion, that I think is shared by quite a few users on the boards - if you look around you'll find a similar sentiment among other players. Not ALL of course, but a fair share. But first and foremost these are personal opinions.
Paladin is among the strongest combat classes, surely - but he's outdamaged by a fighter by a big margin against anything that can't be smitten, and they're about equal (IIRC) vs. "normal" evil opponents.
Bard is a strong class, but a support class. Giving a support class an additional benefit is easier to do as it has less risk of outshining other classes - it has to get a LOT of combat power to step on the toes of the fighter, and a LOT of magic power to step on the toes of the wizard.
Summoner is a strong but wonky class. I can't really say much about it since I don't really get the class. It's weird.
Sorcerer is a strong class, that's for sure, but within his field (arcane magic) the wizard is stronger and as such, he'd have to get a quite large bonus before we would see power creep in the "arcane classes" department.
Getting away with dumping? Strange no one talks about Int.
Dumping INT: A lot of people does it. Especially if they play a humans.
A rogue or a ranger dumping his int so he can boost his con to 14. Favored class bonus can now be added to skills and he get one bonus skill point per level since he is human. The rogue still gets 8 skill point and the ranger still get his 6 skill points.
Here is a funny thing. If you play a 2 skill rank per level class 8 int or 7 int will give you the same amount of skill ranks since all creatures are given minimum 1 skill rank per level. If human you add one skill rank and then one more from your favored class bonus. 3 skill ranks per level. It already been establish in other threads that this is indeed legit.
Shouldn't we punish those players that uses this loophole?
Except they suffer the penalty both to the amount of skill point and to the bonuses of knowledge skills.
So if a human rogue drops his int to 8 to get 8 skill points per level, he'll both have a harder time investing in disable device and knowledge (local), and he'll have a need to invest more skill points into them.A character dropping cha loses 1 sp per social skill. A character dropping int loses 1 sp per level plus 1 sp per intelligence skill.
But I'm more interested not so much in making dumping Cha unattractive as making those that DON'T dump cha feel the investment is Cha is worth something. More carrot than stick, basically.
|
But I'm more interested not so much in making dumping Cha unattractive as making those that DON'T dump cha feel the investment is Cha is worth something. More carrot than stick, basically.
I'll reiterate: Allowing the higher of Wis and Chr for Will Saves does this quite well, and isn't so big a bonus it unbalances things towards the Charisma classes.
I'll reiterate: Allowing the higher of Wis and Chr for Will Saves does this quite well, and isn't so big a bonus it unbalances things towards the Charisma classes.
But I'm more interested not so much in making dumping Cha unattractive as making those that DON'T dump cha feel the investment is Cha is worth something. More carrot than stick, basically.
Yeah, agreed. However, I don't like having one save based on two stats while the others are based on one stat, so then you'd have Int/Dex for Ref and Str/Con for Fort. Which isn't a bad change, now that I think of it - it'll make the "smart fighter" less suboptimal, and wizards really don't worry about getting hit by elemental spells anyway so...
Summoner is a strong but wonky class. I can't really say much about it since I don't really get the class. It's weird.
To add to that, there's a credible school of summoner build thought that calls for "dumping" CHR, where dumping in this case qualifies as "keep it just high enough, counting stat bump items, to cast your highest level spell."
What I'm looking to see added is more ways in which Cha can be more useful across the board. Not so much ways to penalize low Cha. More carrot than stick as it were. In other words I'm hoping to see new applications for Cha outside of social interactions and keying class abilities.
Well, strength is also useless beyond combat and, well, feats of strength. Many characters have no use whatsoever for strength.
Or intelligence. It helps those who want to make their Knowledge checks, wizards, and maybe a few other instances. Many characters can happily ignore it.