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.
First of all, yes, it is a hard decision to dump cha if I have nothing that runs off it, because it still means the character is overly introverted, unappealing, unfriendly, etc. I don't usually play characters with charisma penalties.
I have played wizards with str 8 (a "str8 wizard") - I don't generally go down to 7, but if I did, I'd totally do it with a wizard. Plenty of time to offset that before you get even close to old age. All you need is magic. And magic is something wizards have plenty.
And there are reasons not to go down to cha 7(5) with a dwarf. One is that the character will be just awful. Who'd want to adventure with someone like that? He might count as a pack mule, but surely not a companion.
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.
Let's see:
Core classes that can ignore strength:
And that's just for what I call the typical character of those classes. Sure, you can make characters of each of these classes that make use of strength, but then again, you can make characters of many other classes that mostly ignore it, too.
Core classes that can ignore charisma.
Sure, more classes can ignore charisma, but it's far from "all except cleric". In fact, Bards, Paladins and Sorcerers need it a lot more than clerics.
And then there's intelligence.
The Wizard pays for dumping his Strength score. Other characters should pay for dumping their Charisma.
How does he pay more than those who dump charisma?
Don't bother to answer, really, since the answer is totally dependant on the GM, the campaign, the adventure...
Don't bother to answer, really, since the answer is totally dependant on the GM, the campaign, the adventure...
Vulnerability to STR-draining attacks, which is the most commonly attacked stat by traps/spells/monsters by a fairly wide margin.
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.
Something in this post bothers me...
Oh wait there it is..."properly run game..."
This phrase says unless one runs a game a specific way they are having badwrongfun.
There is no wrong way to run an RPG!
Well not if you are having fun at it anyway.
Vulnerability to STR-draining attacks, which is the most commonly attacked stat by traps/spells/monsters by a fairly wide margin.
Don't bother to answer, really, since the answer is totally dependant on the GM, the campaign, the adventure...
CMD as well.
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.Let's see:
Core classes that can ignore strength:
Bard. Just use a crossbow, get damage through spells and bardic performance, use extra points for dex, int, cha, con.
Rogue. Dex all the way, weapon finesse takes care of attack rolls, and sneak attack takes care of damage.
Sorcerer. Strength? What for?
Wizard. See sorcerer. And that's just for what I call the typical character of those classes. Sure, you can make characters of each of these classes that make use of strength, but then again, you can make characters of many other classes that mostly ignore it, too.
Congrats, you picked up armor for your rogue or bard, and a weapon.. You've hit your str limit and then passed it.
Don't forget to add in the weight of your gold too :D
Vulnerability to STR-draining attacks, which is the most commonly attacked stat by traps/spells/monsters by a fairly wide margin.
Don't bother to answer, really, since the answer is totally dependant on the GM, the campaign, the adventure...
The cha is more dependent on gm, campaign.. ect.
There isn't a chapter in the additional rules that says "If the characters cha is X, then do Y"
There is nothing there. And just saying "high cha gets the apple easy and low cha gets beat up.." explain to me then Hags. or various other high cha monsters that are kill on sight.
But there is a part of additional rules that say "you can only carry this much if your str is X before penalties"
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.
If a GM refuses to utilize the existing CHA mechanics, such as requesting a diplomacy check when the Dragon asks for a good reason not to eat the party, then the GM should not be surprised when his players dump CHA. Of course they're going to dump CHA, because the GM has made a conscious, planned effort to make CHA worthless.
This whole thread seems to be like a bunch of people who don't allow CHA to do what it does, complaining about how it doesn't do anything. Well duh.
|
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.If a GM refuses to utilize the existing CHA mechanics, such as requesting a diplomacy check when the Dragon asks for a good reason not to eat the party, then the GM should not be surprised when his players dump CHA. Of course they're going to dump CHA, because the GM has made a conscious, planned effort to make CHA worthless.
This whole thread seems to be like a bunch of people who don't allow CHA to do what it does, complaining about how it doesn't do anything. Well duh.
Except for those of us who really like using Cha.
Actually as a rogue I won't dump charisma often. I might not have much of a bonus but I won't dump it.
I need it for the "guile" part of "stealth and guile" and it's easier to talk your way out of bars than to fight your way out.
Besides Use magic device is charisma based -- I like not having a penalty to it.
This whole thread seems to be like a bunch of people who don't allow CHA to do a lot more than it does, according to the rules, and then complaining about how it doesn't do more. Well duh.
Fixed that for you.
What I see in games are 1 person with a high Charisma maxing Diplomacy and doing all the talking, and the rest of the party dumping Cha as low as possible. And by the rules as written, that's all you need.
This whole thread seems to be like a bunch of people who don't allow CHA to do a lot more than it does, according to the rules, and then complaining about how it doesn't do more. Well duh.Fixed that for you.
What I see in games are 1 person with a high Charisma maxing Diplomacy and doing all the talking, and the rest of the party dumping Cha as low as possible. And by the rules as written, that's all you need.
No it's not -- an NPC can agree to help one party member but not the party as a whole.
No it's not -- an NPC can agree to help one party member but not the party as a whole.
So quote me where it says you can't use Diplomacy on behalf of your teammates? I missed that rule. If it exists, then I agree the problem is solved.
The cha is more dependent on gm, campaign.. ect.There isn't a chapter in the additional rules that says "If the characters cha is X, then do Y"
There is nothing there. And just saying "high cha gets the apple easy and low cha gets beat up.." explain to me then Hags. or various other high cha monsters that are kill on sight.
This is what I don't get. Instead of creating some superficial reason for Charisma to be important for combat, why aren't you pushing for expanded social rules? That would seem to completely fix the problem you keep bringing up again and again. If there's a rule for it, you're not relying on DM fiat, he doesn't determine success/failure, he just helps interpret it for the game.
There is nothing there. And just saying "high cha gets the apple easy and low cha gets beat up.." explain to me then Hags. or various other high cha monsters that are kill on sight.
If you're holding an apple and you meet a Hag, you give her the apple..
...and anything else that might stop the creepy-as-hell creature from tearing your skin off and nibbling your marrow.
::
Or, if you prefer - they inspire fear and terror justwalking into the room.
This is an example of what I like to call 'passive' influence and one of the ways we reward and reflect a 'strong' charisma score.
Note: The Hag could make use of charisma-based skills to influence the holder of the apple. This would be 'active' influence which would require the Hag to expend time and effort.
For the folk in the back row: The holder of the apple *doesn't have to give the Hag the apple*. However, if the DM adjudicates that the holder of the apple does give the Hag the apple, they have rewarded (and some may say encouraged) the possession of a 'strong' charisma score.
::
|
Quick and dirty house rule for NPC's first meeting of a group. Initial reaction depends on the average CHA of the group.
Say, a 5 character party with four characters with 7 CHA and one with a 16? average CHA for the party would be 8 (well 8.8 rounded down per standard rounding rules in PF), have the NPC react accordingly.
you can also have every party member roll diplomacy when dealing with the king (for example) even if only one is speaking. People who beat the DC add a +2 to the main speakers roll, people who fail add -2 to the main speakers roll.
Diplomacy is not only what to say and what not to say, but how to act, stand, etc.. Even if the low charisma fighter is not speaking, there is nothing stating that he is not being disrespectful in other ways (staring at the kings daughter, picking his nose, etc.. )
(edited to correct stupid typos)
No it's not -- an NPC can agree to help one party member but not the party as a whole.So quote me where it says you can't use Diplomacy on behalf of your teammates? I missed that rule. If it exists, then I agree the problem is solved.
I'm sorry, I misunderstood are you your teammate? If so then obviously you can speak for yourself.
Otherwise you can't talk for them -- you can make a request on your own to get your new friend to help your current ones -- but that isn't the same as making the check for them -- and is you specifically asking for a favor with your own diplomacy check.
By your logic I should be able to make attack rolls for my friends too.
No it's not -- an NPC can agree to help one party member but not the party as a whole.So quote me where it says you can't use Diplomacy on behalf of your teammates? I missed that rule. If it exists, then I agree the problem is solved.I'm sorry, I misunderstood are you your teammate? If so then obviously you can speak for yourself.
Otherwise you can't talk for them -- you can make a request on your own to get your new friend to help your current ones -- but that isn't the same as making the check for them -- and is you specifically asking for a favor with your own diplomacy check.
By your logic I should be able to make attack rolls for my friends too.
Actually.. you do.
I stab monster, it dies. You don't need to stab monster now. Hence i "made" your roll.
Only difference with cha based.. the monster isn't dead. Its been talked to.
By your logic I have to have my animal companion talk to everyone. While hilarious.. it is ineffective.
Actually.. you do.I stab monster, it dies. You don't need to stab monster now. Hence i "made" your roll.
Only difference with cha based.. the monster isn't dead. Its been talked to.
By your logic I have to have my animal companion talk to everyone. While hilarious.. it is ineffective.
Not at all -- my animal companion is trying to secure anyone's help -- the other members of the party are. Also if I kill the monster then you don't need to roll -- that's not the same as me rolling for you using my bonuses and letting you get a hit when you normally can't hit the opponent.
It is rather the same as combat -- I've gotten the NPC to agree to help me, you have to do the same.
Now I can try to get the NPC to simply help my group -- but that isn't the same as making the NPC friendly to the group, and would be request I make of the NPC at some point.
He might even agree to help -- but if he doesn't like some of the party members he won't help as much, and he might want something in return.
Nothing about diplomacy states the NPC must do something for you -- only that you can make him friendly (or unfriendly) and try to enlist his aid.
Actually.. you do.I stab monster, it dies. You don't need to stab monster now. Hence i "made" your roll.
Only difference with cha based.. the monster isn't dead. Its been talked to.
By your logic I have to have my animal companion talk to everyone. While hilarious.. it is ineffective.
Not at all -- my animal companion is trying to secure anyone's help -- the other members of the party are. Also if I kill the monster then you don't need to roll -- that's not the same as me rolling for you using my bonuses and letting you get a hit when you normally can't hit the opponent.
It is rather the same as combat -- I've gotten the NPC to agree to help me, you have to do the same.
Now I can try to get the NPC to simply help my group -- but that isn't the same as making the NPC friendly to the group, and would be request I make of the NPC at some point.
He might even agree to help -- but if he doesn't like some of the party members he won't help as much, and he might want something in return.
Nothing about diplomacy states the NPC must do something for you -- only that you can make him friendly (or unfriendly) and try to enlist his aid.
If you killed the monster, the challenge is over.
If the face talks to the NPC, the challenge is over.But hey, since I'm an evil bastard, If I was in your game, better hope that all of your npcs have cha when they want my help. Cause the King may have lots of cha.. but that private over there.. he has terrible cha. Why should I help the king when he has that guy there? I demand higher payment.. or maybe I just won't help the king at all.
If you killed the monster, the challenge is over.
If the face talks to the NPC, the challenge is over.But hey, since I'm an evil bastard, If I was in your game, better hope that all of your npcs have cha when they want my help. Cause the King may have lots of cha.. but that private over there.. he has terrible cha. Why should I help the king when he has that guy there? I demand higher payment.. or maybe I just won't help the king at all.
Excuse me? Did I ever state you were evil? Did I ever question who your parents were?
Also diplomacy specifically doesn't work on PCs -- and you have hit on another grip of mine -- the NPC that is supposed to be much more of a people person than his stats indicate. It's just as much BS when a GM (or designer) does it as when a player does it.
Also who ever said the pirate was working with the king? The very term 'pirate' tends to suggest that he's not a legitimate authority figure -- and if he gets treated as such because he charisma skills are poor so be it.
And if you don't help the king? Fine -- I'm the GM -- I'm not supposed to tell your character what he will and will not do. That is your job as a player in almost every case. Demand more pay because you don't like the guy on the throne? That's good too -- some people take an irrational dislike of others regardless of how the other person acts. I'm okay with that.
Now you might find it harder to leave the castle -- you might find it harder to find work, and taxes might go up on you. Your lack of cooperation might cause the kingdom to fall, and rebellion to take the city and all sorts of other headaches for you. But that is part of the world around you moving and changing. The higher taxes might be because the king had to send more people at a higher rate than what he was going to pay you. The scarcity of work could be because people don't want to be seen with someone that scorned the king, and wouldn't help out. Now how you react to that is up to you -- You are the PC -- so long as you stay within the rules it's all good.
I don't see your point abraham. Yes, an NPC may not like a PC. That doesn't mean the face PC can't get the NPC to help the party as a whole.
Read my post again TMZ I didn't state the face could not get the NPC to help the whole party -- I simply stated he doesn't have to either.
Doesn't have to =/= will not.
My point being that nothing in diplomacy states it forces the NPC to do anything other than have a specific attitude -- towards you.
Nothing in diplomacy states you can roll it for other people.
Nothing in diplomacy states that you can simply let another guy always talk for you -- just as nothing in diplomacy states that your friend can't intervene to get you the help you need.
Short and long if it is the NPC is still a character with his own choices, and decisions to make -- and he'll make those choices based on how he feels about the situation, the people present, and how he feels/interacts with them.
|
|
I still don't see your point. You mean to say 'yes, the group could have one high Cha and a bunch of low Cha guys, but that doesn't mean the NPC will help you'? That's no different than saying 'the party can have average Cha all around, that doesn't mean the NPC won't help you'. It's such an obvious statement that I don't understand why you felt the need to call it out.
I also don't understand the 'TMZ' thing. I think you've done it before, and I didn't understand it then. Are you feeling hostile towards me? Am I offending you? Because I'm in complete earnest here. I was recently convinced by another posters activity that I never want to be snarky or condescending to another poster again. If you feel insulted, please reconsider my posts with that in mind.
If you killed the monster, the challenge is over.
If the face talks to the NPC, the challenge is over.But hey, since I'm an evil bastard, If I was in your game, better hope that all of your npcs have cha when they want my help. Cause the King may have lots of cha.. but that private over there.. he has terrible cha. Why should I help the king when he has that guy there? I demand higher payment.. or maybe I just won't help the king at all.
Excuse me? Did I ever state you were evil? Did I ever question who your parents were?
Also diplomacy specifically doesn't work on PCs -- and you have hit on another grip of mine -- the NPC that is supposed to be much more of a people person than his stats indicate. It's just as much BS when a GM (or designer) does it as when a player does it.
Also who ever said the pirate was working with the king? The very term 'pirate' tends to suggest that he's not a legitimate authority figure -- and if he gets treated as such because he charisma skills are poor so be it.
And if you don't help the king? Fine -- I'm the GM -- I'm not supposed to tell your character what he will and will not do. That is your job as a player in almost every case. Demand more pay because you don't like the guy on the throne? That's good too -- some people take an irrational dislike of others regardless of how the other person acts. I'm okay with that.
Now you might find it harder to leave the castle -- you might find it harder to find work, and taxes might go up on you. Your lack of cooperation might cause the kingdom to fall, and rebellion to take the city and all sorts of other headaches for you. But that is part of the world around you moving and changing. The higher taxes might be because the king had to send more people at a higher rate than what he was going to pay you. The scarcity of work could be because people don't want to be seen with someone that scorned the king, and wouldn't help out. Now how you react to that is up...
No, I'm an evil bastard.. not that you called me one.
second.. I said private. Its pretty obvious the private works for the king.. he is after all in his uniform.
Besides, the kings lack of cooperation to our party just because he didn't like the "button men" I shown up with would have done the same.
Too bad I'm the one leading the rebellion though.. After all, while the rest of my party dumped cha, I didn't. I also took leadership, went down the path of battle herald and took many ranks into "perform: Epic Speech" (aka Oratory) and blah blah..
Basically the point is, why do you expect that an NPC would be concerned that everyone in a group has to talk while they themselves do not have everyone talk from their group.
On the current thought on this thread, the idea of one person being the voice for the party, I don't consider it to be unreasonable. I myself am outgoing (not gonna say charismatic) and would often find I was the only person in many groups I've been a part of who'd go out and talk to people at gatherings. Heck, to the point where I was talking for the group.
Now, on the flipside, look at this idea from the standpoint of the other characters. Often players in D&D say that their low charisma's stem from a lack in social graces, not low physical appearance. As such it's unlikely that they would sit there quietly while someone else spoke for them. Bad roleplaying. Also, what if their wisdom scores are also tanked? If those are also low they don't have the common sense or intuition not to jump into the conversation. Go the full nine yards and say the players dumped intelligence as well... I think you see where I'm going. I for one don't like when people talk for me, in real life or games.
Finally, this idea also seems to assume that the person with the highest charisma also has the highest intelligence and wisdom. Because if the conversation turns to knowledge of tactics or history, the wizard will probably speak up. Meaning a potential low charisma character is interacting with the NPC. Same goes for wisdom and common sense. Just look at Elan from the Order of the Stick. Fairly good example of a high charisma character that dumped intelligence and wisdom...
I still don't see your point. You mean to say 'yes, the group could have one high Cha and a bunch of low Cha guys, but that doesn't mean the NPC will help you'? That's no different than saying 'the party can have average Cha all around, that doesn't mean the NPC won't help you'. It's such an obvious statement that I don't understand why you felt the need to call it out.
I also don't understand the 'TMZ' thing. I think you've done it before, and I didn't understand it then. Are you feeling hostile towards me? Am I offending you? Because I'm in complete earnest here. I was recently convinced by another posters activity that I never want to be snarky or condescending to another poster again. If you feel insulted, please reconsider my posts with that in mind.
Kirth stated that you can just have the face do the talking for you and the face would roll for you and that's how it works. Now I fully agree that it can work that way -- but there is nothing stating it has to, or does. Even if the NPC does help he doesn't have to help everyone in the party. It could be I'm more use to a "group of individuals" than an actual party where there is more intrigue between party members/NPCs/the world as a whole too. I'm use to seeing a low charisma guy get harried the entire time he's at a castle 'with the party' and the rest of the party not. I've seen NPCs go, "Well I was going to help you, and I'm still going to help you because you are a friend -- here is some stuff for you. As a favor to you I'm not throwing these other people in jail... but you best move them along -- now."
Kirth seems to think that it is somehow unfair or incorrect to hold each member of the party accountable for their part in all situations. I feel that just because the face is talking doesn't mean that somehow excludes the low charisma characters from the conversation, the negotiations (if there are any) or from ever talking.
***************************************
About the TMZ thing --
No I am not insulted, and not trying to be insulting either -- not at all -- I simply put TMZ to specify that I am addressing you, and am too lazy to type out TriOmegaZero -- if it is somehow and insult I truly did not know and apologize profusely.
No, I'm an evil bastard.. not that you called me one.
second.. I said private. Its pretty obvious the private works for the king.. he is after all in his uniform.
Besides, the kings lack of cooperation to our party just because he didn't like the "button men" I shown up with would have done the same.
Too bad I'm the one leading the rebellion though.. After all, while the rest of my party dumped cha, I didn't. I also took leadership, went down the path of battle herald and took many ranks into "perform: Epic Speech" (aka Oratory) and blah blah..
Basically the point is, why do you expect that an NPC would be concerned that everyone in a group has to talk while they themselves do not have everyone talk from their group.
Oh okay, wanted to be sure I wasn't being accused of something.
As to the "why would the NPC care about the rest of the party?"
I point first to Valcrist's excellent post -- I feel he covers a lot of good points.
Second I would suggest that the NPC might want to know who he's working with. A king of good alignment for example might not want to be known for working with an assassin, a necromancer and a slaver. Another NPC might have something against Half-Orcs specifically (not always the case to be clear), that might cause issues that are going to have to be smoothed out. Maybe the wizard you are talking to wants to share spells/ theories (at first) with the party wizard... and once the party wizard with a Cha of 7 starts talking to him the NPC wizard quickly realizes... this guy is a jerk and I don't like him -- which can cause issues for the wizard's friends too.
It's the flip side of the very coin that allows the face to talk for the party -- and it should be showing just as often as it doesn't in my opinion.
|
|
Kirth seems to think that it is somehow unfair or incorrect to hold each member of the party accountable for their part in all situations. I feel that just because the face is talking doesn't mean that somehow excludes the low charisma characters from the conversation, the negotiations (if there are any) or from ever talking.***************************************
About the TMZ thing --
No I am not insulted, and not trying to be insulting either -- not at all -- I simply put TMZ to specify that I am addressing you, and am too lazy to type out TriOmegaZero -- if it is somehow and insult I truly did not know and apologize profusely.
Okay, I can see how Kirth's statement can be viewed that way. Glad we got that clarified. And to the abbreviation thing too. I figured I was imagining things, I'm just used to TOZ instead of TMZ. Although TrioMegaZero is a nice spin on an old nick. :)
One outgoing speaker and a bunch of rejects... isn't that the formula for every gang, mercenary company, rebels, etc ever?
One guy is the center of attention, and most other people around him just exist to further his goals.
Look at Berserk, the manga/anime. There is one "oh mah gawd" charismatic guy that is in charge of the mercenary company, where everyone else have mostly low to average charisma.
Look at typical gang movies or series, like The Wire. You have a core of very few, very charismatic people, leading a lot of non-charismatic ones.
Same with most every group of rebels/resistance ever mounted: One shining beacon of leadership, lots of not so gifted ones.
If you work on the premise that charisma = high school popularity, sure, the charisma bunch would not hang with the non-charismatic ones, except to be prettier in comparison. But that is the only way I can see there be a problem with having only one charisma person.
And frankly, speaking from real life work/school-experience, it is much easier to go though ONE guy than many people. Most, if not all, prefer to speak with a single person. And look on the flip side of that; would any PCs ever NOT accept the quest from the king because his royal guardsmen were uncharismatic? (One charisma dude with lots of non-charismatics). "Well, your majesty, I would help you, really, but all your goons here just suck all the energy out of this room and cramps my mojo, so sorry."
Kirth seems to think that it is somehow unfair or incorrect to hold each member of the party accountable for their part in all situations.
I'd qualify that -- I feel it's unfair if everyone has one view of how Diplomacy works, and the DM turns around and enforces his different view.
I'll admit that, reading the description, I saw nothing that would imply that "change a creature's attitude" changed it for that person only, and not for the group. Your point, that it doesn't spell out "the party" and doesn't specifically state that you CAN use it to ask "please be nice to me and my friends" vs. only being able to say "please be nice to me only" is well taken, and one that I hadn't considered.
Note that I'm assuming we're not dealing with a PC vs. PC game, because those have enough problems already that Charisma usage is the least of our worries.
Okay, I can see how Kirth's statement can be viewed that way. Glad we got that clarified. And to the abbreviation thing too. I figured I was imagining things, I'm just used to TOZ instead of TMZ. Although TrioMegaZero is a nice spin on an old nick. :)
Yeah for some reason even though I know it's Omega, I keep missing it when I go to abbreviate it. I simply skip to the 'm' without thinking about it.
Kirth seems to think that it is somehow unfair or incorrect to hold each member of the party accountable for their part in all situations.I'd qualify that -- I feel it's unfair if everyone has one view of how Diplomacy works, and the DM turns around and enforces his different view.
I'll admit that, reading the description, I saw nothing that would imply that "change a creature's attitude" changed it for that person only, and not for the group. Your point, that it doesn't spell out "the party" and doesn't specifically state that you CAN use it to ask "please be nice to me and my friends" vs. only being able to say "please be nice to me only" is well taken, and one that I hadn't considered.
If the results shift for the group, problem solved. Clarification in the rules would be nice.
If a high-diplomacy character CAN ask for the target to be nice "to me AND my companions," then one would assume that any high-Cha PC who isn't a total dick will do so, and the standard usage defaults to the above.
If and only if the PC's companions are specifically exclusded by rule does Charisma then become useful for all characters. If that is the case, clarification in the rules would be nice. Note that I'm assuming we're not dealing with a PC vs. PC game, because those have enough problems already that Charisma usage is the least of our worries.
All valid points -- and we generally don't play PC vs. PC -- it's just that we don't automatically assume we are all buddy buddy communists working as a collective.
NOT that I'm saying that is what others do, and I personally wouldn't expect the low Charisma PC to have to put up with the sort of stuff I'm talking about all the time.
But just like the low strength wizard has to deal with a grapple every now and then the low charisma PC should have to deal with being in the conversation every now and then too -- and that his involvement will probably (not guaranteed!) negatively impact the way things turn out just like the wizard being grappled will probably have a negative impact on how things turn out.
It definitely shouldn't be an "every time the face talks" thing, but there are occasions when it should come up.
But just like the low strength wizard has to deal with a grapple every now and then the low charisma PC should have to deal with being in the conversation every now and then too -- and that his involvement will probably (not guaranteed!) negatively impact the way things turn out just like the wizard being grappled will probably have a negative impact on how things turn out.
It definitely shouldn't be an "every time the face talks" thing, but there are occasions when it should come up.
Gotcha. That makes sense; it allows the Cha bonus to Diplomacy to function equivalently to the Str bonus to CMD. Parity there, except that Str still has carrying capacity, for which Cha still lacks an analogue.
|
Finally, this idea also seems to assume that the person with the highest charisma also has the highest intelligence and wisdom. Because if the conversation turns to knowledge of tactics or history, the wizard will probably speak up. Meaning a potential low charisma character is interacting with the NPC. Same goes for wisdom and common sense. Just look at Elan from the Order of the Stick. Fairly good example of a high charisma character that dumped intelligence and wisdom...
Yeah, this is one big beef with me, too.
Simply put, the reason you see parties consisting of four social retards and one face-guy, is because it is so easy to build a Diplomancer.
One high stat (with Int as close second, for skill points), two maxed skills (Diplomacy and Bluff), three if you go for Intimidate, and you've covered every social situation in the game.
Throw in some trait bonuses, skill focus, and keep your headband of Cha topped up, and every APL-appropriate NPC you meet will be forced to beg you for the opportunity to fulfil your every desire.
Unlike other hazards, which can strike indiscriminately ("A fireball goes off; everyone make a Reflex save"), and which require everyone to have an investment in the relevant stat, a social situation can be resolved by one guy pushing to the front and trivialising the encounter. When one PC is doing this, what's the point in competing? That guy has everything covered.
Why?
Because all it takes is three skills, at most, but canny players can reduce everything to an application of one skill.
Want to persuade the king to send troops to the border? Diplomacy.
Want to get information from the city's beggars? Diplomacy.
Want the town guard to look the other way while you break into the BBEG's mansion? Diplomacy.
Want to get the temple to raise your buddy for cost price? Diplomacy.
Want to get access to the spellbooks in the Wizards Guild library? Diplomacy.
Want to get NPC X to do action Y? Diplomacy.
As a result, the GMs get sick of one guy trivialising every social situation through spamming one skill, so they crank the DC through the roof. This discourages every other player from even trying to keep up, and you have a vicious cycle.
If you want to see the other PCs and players get involved in the game, you have to make it possible for them to contribute, using the skills they do have.
That means breaking the stranglehold that Diplomacy has over being the catch-all skill for every occasion.
Make 'Diplomacy' a specific use of other skills, in the same way that 'Tumbling' is a specific use of the Acrobatics skill.
Want to question the stable boy about what he might have seen? Send the Cavalier, or the Paladin. They are the ones the stable boy holds in awe, not the...pffft....the minstrel. They are the ones who can give him tips on looking after those fine stallions, let him get close and groom them, share some trade secrets like how to teach a certain trick.
'These guys are so cooool, I don't feel afraid of the local crime boss when these guys are around. I'll tell them what I saw, and they'll totally kick his ass.'.
<Player rolls Handle Animal check, or Ride, or Knowledge nature, substituting Cha for the regular ability modifier.>
Similarly, negotiations with the temple, on raising the dead ought to come from the party cleric.
Providing references and justification to research spells should come from the wizard.
Fraternising with the town guard ought to be the fighter's job.
Gathering info down the docks should be the job of the sailor.
Keep Diplomacy for non-specific schmoozing with the aristocracy, knowing which spoon to use, or better still, throw it out the game altogether.
Can one PC keep all those relevant skills maxed? Probably not. He'll have to accept a wider spread of lower skill bonuses, or delegate some of the social encounters to those whose backgrounds make sense.
One outgoing speaker and a bunch of rejects... isn't that the formula for every gang, mercenary company, rebels, etc ever?
One guy is the center of attention, and most other people around him just exist to further his goals.
Look at Berserk, the manga/anime. There is one "oh mah gawd" charismatic guy that is in charge of the mercenary company, where everyone else have mostly low to average charisma.
Look at typical gang movies or series, like The Wire. You have a core of very few, very charismatic people, leading a lot of non-charismatic ones.
Same with most every group of rebels/resistance ever mounted: One shining beacon of leadership, lots of not so gifted ones.
If you work on the premise that charisma = high school popularity, sure, the charisma bunch would not hang with the non-charismatic ones, except to be prettier in comparison. But that is the only way I can see there be a problem with having only one charisma person.
And frankly, speaking from real life work/school-experience, it is much easier to go though ONE guy than many people. Most, if not all, prefer to speak with a single person. And look on the flip side of that; would any PCs ever NOT accept the quest from the king because his royal guardsmen were uncharismatic? (One charisma dude with lots of non-charismatics). "Well, your majesty, I would help you, really, but all your goons here just suck all the energy out of this room and cramps my mojo, so sorry."
that's basically what I was getting at myself.
I don't expect one character to be able to do everything, but I do expect a party to accomplish lots more than each individual person.
Like a football team, you don't expect linemen to be able to play a quarterback or running back. You except them to do the job of a lineman.
Look at prince of persia.. that bandit guy and the knife thrower. The thrower barely ever talks. Or Jay and Silent Bob. Heck there is a number of times when two people are talking throughout movies where they have a second person in the back doing something stupid. The NPC character is like "Will he be alright?".. they don't go all red queen and scream "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!"
Gotcha. That makes sense; it allows the Cha bonus to Diplomacy to function equivalently to the Str bonus to CMD. Parity there, except that Str still has carrying capacity, for which Cha still lacks an analogue.But just like the low strength wizard has to deal with a grapple every now and then the low charisma PC should have to deal with being in the conversation every now and then too -- and that his involvement will probably (not guaranteed!) negatively impact the way things turn out just like the wizard being grappled will probably have a negative impact on how things turn out.
It definitely shouldn't be an "every time the face talks" thing, but there are occasions when it should come up.
Agreed -- Cha lacks having several key things that it helps with.
BUT -- if the leadership is in play you want Cha.
There are also some more 'non-mechanical' benefits too.
The guy doing all the talking is likely to be the one to get titles... and probably the one the rest of the party is going to have to ask for things like rewards, permissions, and the like. The face becomes a bit of the "boss" because of this.
Not that he can tell the party what to do -- but he can just as easily not help them out as well.
As Snorter and ... "I can't make that letter on a computer" pointed out -- it's also easy to be the face.
Which helps balance out the fact that it has little impact beyond social status for many characters (certainly not all).
As Snorter and ... "I can't make that letter on a computer" pointed out -- it's also easy to be the face.
Which helps balance out the fact that it has little impact beyond social status for many characters (certainly not all).
for FYI
the Æ is alt+0198. I randomly found it one day when I was like "I want to make a character with the strangest letter combos.." (and I was thinking of Æther.. like in magic the gathering.)
I have found times that its hard to be face though. Mostly whenever I want to be face, there is always a second person who wants to as well. OR the rest of the party is constantly doing things, while I, the player, am constantly being ignored. Or when the DM is an idiot and cannot understand the words that are coming out of my mouth.. because she didn't read the rules for what she gave me.
I ended lampshading this though in another game, where I am the most boring-est person ever who can walk right in front a bunch of armed guards and they don't even realize I'm there.
Course that has to do with issues of the GM/players and not the rule system.
Fair points -- I mean mechanically, which is something I should have stated.
What I really want to play though is my dragonborn mongrelman/stoneblessed/barbarian/dragon disciple masochist again. Dude had several hundred hit points at level 10, and a negative AC in 3.5 (when such is a very bad thing) -- however each time you hit him he would hit you back. By level 12 he could beat the tarresque in a battle of attrition.
Vulnerability to STR-draining attacks, which is the most commonly attacked stat by traps/spells/monsters by a fairly wide margin.
Don't bother to answer, really, since the answer is totally dependant on the GM, the campaign, the adventure...
The GM still has to use those monsters. And spells, and traps.
In a game where none of that stuff is used (not too far a stretch), but where social encounters are important, the uncharismatic character pays more.
We've actually got a person in our group who has lower than normal mental stats in real life. She ends up always playing a fighter who ends up mirroring herself (though is more physically capable of course)
Her "face man" is her husband. She lets him do almost all the talking, occasionally chiming in with "We need to get off the bus here." (yes we were riding a real life bus) or other little factual tidbits.
She has actually givin us some of the greatest amounts of humor in our game though.
Its kinda what I'm getting at with blackstar. Sure, he is annoying and obnoxious.. but so is Obama. (always interrupting my Tv shows to talk.. :/
But he does have drive, and he is strong willed. (a trait that gives halfings +2 cha.. but not +2 wis.. strange things.)
I Think thats the biggest reason why cha is a dump stat. The developers themselves made it a dump stat for things that just didn't fit in anywhere else. It has a huge amount of overlap with wisdom in various things, even some overlap in dex. Could also make the argument it has overlap in con, but that would be the weakest of the arguments.
Its bits and pieces of various things, and possibly has too many other stats in it.. Personality, looks, etc.
Congrats, you picked up armor for your rogue or bard, and a weapon.. You've hit your str limit and then passed it.Don't forget to add in the weight of your gold too :D
Only relevant if the GM enforces all that.
Only relevant if the GM enforces all that.
Congrats, you picked up armor for your rogue or bard, and a weapon.. You've hit your str limit and then passed it.Don't forget to add in the weight of your gold too :D
Same with HP.. and classes. and anything really.
Hell a GM could enforce that you look like a hideous monstrosity if any of your physical stats are above a 12 and are in danger of having your head explode every time you hear the word "it"
we aren't arguing over the poonanie stat being underpowered. We are arguing that the cha stat, by the book, is underpowered.
In a properly ran game.. that is to say a game ran by the most amazing DM ever, who did everything exactly by the book and had the ability to pull stuff out of no where regardless of what the players did, and had a perfect balance between combat and social..
You would still find that cha is lacking. And if you have a DM like that.. tell me where he is. I would like to learn from the master.
I am sad the A-Team was not included in your post.
Wow. Me too :(
A-Team is a great example. Heck their face-character is CALLED Face.
As for the running Cha dealie, it becomes way harder if there are multiple charisma dudes. To the point where some players might feel stumped. I ran a playboy type draconic bloodline sorcerer in Curse of the Crimson Throne. He was dripping confidence, danger and drew the eyes of women everywhere. Cha19 off the bat, 20 at lv4, 22 when he got money together for a headband of Cha+2.
And in the same party there was the swashbuckler/rogue with Cha16, who felt that my character completely stole the show in every social situation. Then there was a couple of Cha12 characters that might as well have put 7 for all the attention they got in comparison. Heck, we actually RPed a couple of the parties my character used to throw, and while Cha 22 was literally swimming in swooning ladies, the fighter got drunk mostly alone and woke up next to a half-orc that seemed to have REALLY dumped Cha, teaching him the value of stealth checks.
|
|
In a properly ran game.. that is to say a game ran by the most amazing DM ever, who did everything exactly by the book and had the ability to pull stuff out of no where regardless of what the players did, and had a perfect balance between combat and social..You would still find that cha is lacking. And if you have a DM like that.. tell me where he is. I would like to learn from the master.
So, in a perfectly run game Charisma is lacking. How are we to know this? The perfectly run game is one suited to the players' needs and desires. The perfect game is made specifically so that the players can have fun. If that means Charisma is useless, then fine. That's the game the players want to play. If it means Dexterity or Intelligence is useless, then that's the game the players want to play.
In the games I play, Intelligence is probably the most useless stat. I don't like skill penalties, but I've gotten into big trouble by not being persuasive enough, and I'm not here trying to prove that Intelligence is worthless because it rarely sees use in my games. /shrug
|
|
Intelligence gives you skill points. I know I often feel restrained as a cleric with only 2 skill points per level, and splitting them between Knowledge (Religion), Knowledge (Planes), Spellcraft, and maybe some Heal and Diplomacy as well, plus whatever skills I think a cleric of a particular god should know.
[tangent] I often played Cloistered Clerics for this very reason. [/tangent]