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
Note the second part.. Everything exactly by the book. Something of a robot DM truthfully. No real DM ever runs anything exactly by the book though.
As I've said its not the problem with the game the DM craps out, but with the actual base of the game. In the base they want to increase the usefullness of cha, but they go about it the wrong way.
As far as int goes.. Do you guys use skill points? Or knowledge checks? I know in our game.. "You hear a noise" "I want to do a knowledge check to figure out what is making that noise" or something kinda along those lines.
I know though one game I ran, I was a dog. Literally a dog. Well a dragon dog.. Who talked, and a warlock too, I had 21-22 cha. But I wasn't allowed to talk, even though I could. One of the first people we met, I talked, and the entire party was kicked out.
Not because of the chick wearing bunch of cat skins. Or the elf thief.. but just simply because I was a dog who talked.
So I shattered the jerk's place. :D
Strength deals with encumbrance. Let's say a low-level rogue goes for two shortswords (4 lbs), a shortbow with 20 arrows (5 lbs), masterwork studded leather (20 lbs), masterwork thieves' tools (2 lbs), and a pretty standard adventuring kit consisting of a backpack, bedroll, hooded lantern with 2 pints of oil, 50' silk rope with a grappling hook, a waterskin, and 2 days' rations (26 lbs). That's a total of 57 lbs. If he wants to keep his 30' speed and avoid penalties to important skills, he'll need Str 14. Even ignoring the backpack, he'll need Str 10 - not superhigh, but not dump stat territory.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. Pathfinder skill consolidation helps a bit (e.g. no Concentration skill), but I'd rather not dump the stat.
I've played in plenty of games that ignore encumbrance. Too much bookkeeping and too time consuming to bother to work around it, so we just assume it's not an issue and move along.
Strength deals with encumbrance. Let's say a low-level rogue goes for two shortswords (4 lbs), a shortbow with 20 arrows (5 lbs), masterwork studded leather (20 lbs), masterwork thieves' tools (2 lbs), and a pretty standard adventuring kit consisting of a backpack, bedroll, hooded lantern with 2 pints of oil, 50' silk rope with a grappling hook, a waterskin, and 2 days' rations (26 lbs). That's a total of 57 lbs. If he wants to keep his 30' speed and avoid penalties to important skills, he'll need Str 14. Even ignoring the backpack, he'll need Str 10 - not superhigh, but not dump stat territory.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. Pathfinder skill consolidation helps a bit (e.g. no Concentration skill), but I'd rather not dump the stat.
I've played in plenty of games that ignore encumbrance. Too much bookkeeping and too time consuming to bother to work around it, so we just assume it's not an issue and move along.
And that doesn't really mean anything. We are looking by the book. I've played in plenty of games that have comeliness..
Even have a game now where people are having orifices of holding.
For the very few people who perceive a mechanical problem, I've started this thread. That way the majority here can high-five rule zero and say "it's fine" in peace, without having to deal with us nay-sayers.
|
For the very few people who perceive a mechanical problem, I've started this thread. That way the majority here can high-five rule zero and say "it's fine" in peace, without having to deal with us nay-sayers.
I'm not quite sure how to feel about that. The people arguing that Charisma is okay aren't saying "It's broken, but with a DM to fix it it's fine!" We're saying, like everything in this game, that playstyle has a drastic effect on the relevance of ability scores, as does class choice and personal preference. Saying "Charisma is worse than every other attribute" is like saying "Acrobatics is worse than every other skill" because your DM doesn't require balance checks and tumbling doesn't come up often in your group.
It's kind of like saying "You guys can sit here and play nice. The smart people are going to discuss things over there."
We're saying, like everything in this game, that playstyle has a drastic effect on the relevance of ability scores, as does class choice and personal preference. Saying "Charisma is worse than every other attribute" is like saying "Acrobatics is worse than every other skill" because your DM doesn't require balance checks and tumbling doesn't come up often in your group.
What it comes down to for me is that I've played 3.X/PF with literally over a hundred different GMs, and I've very very rarely in that breadth of experience felt like CHR wasn't a smart dump stat for characters who don't need it for class features. (And, to an earlier point, I don't think there was a single one of those games that didn't at least restrict Leadership in some way, which, yes, does have a serious cost in balancing CHR.)
Given that, I feel like, yeah, "But it works in my game!" is a shitty answer, even if it's true, and even if, for you, there is no problem. That doesn't mean you're in any way incorrect for thinking as you do, but it doesn't help me out any more than you asserting that your kid doesn't have polio would do anything constructive if mine did have polio.
What about this?
Checks that represent attempts to influence others
Well I don't feel I'm saying "Cha is fine because it works in my games"
I feel I'm saying, "Here's where we have found uses for Cha in our games. Maybe some of this can help you too."
I do agree Cha can be a dump stat. I don't see that as a "bad" thing though even if it is dumped. IF you take a good Cha score you can get lots of good use out of it.
If you don't there are some situations where you can/will be penalized for it... but they aren't common.
I consider that a 'fair' trade -- if you invest you get great stuff out of it -- if you don't it's not killing you (usually).
I'm good with that.
I'm not in love with the idea that *every* stat must be a "must have or you are penalized" sort of deal. There should be some places where *not* having something or being *really poor* at something isn't going to kill you immediately.
And that doesn't really mean anything. We are looking by the book.
If it's by the book charisma does matter.
If it isn't, str dump isn't a problem. (Nor is int dump or Wis dump or any dex dump.)Remember this:
Charisma only has fluff if you ignore RAW and handwaive the score away.
and remember this:
"dump stats" in general are easily fixed.
step 1:
Apply. All. Rules.[....]
Step 2:
Apply. All. Rules.
You do change the fountaion for your argument rather quickly.
Arguments based on games that ignore encumbrance is no real arguments, but arguments based on games that ignore role-playing and the importence of charisma are?
What it boils down to is you're pretend to be objective, but you are not.
- HEY FOLKS! STR DUMP REALLY MATTER UNLESS YOU DON'T PLAY BY THE BOOK!
- HEY FOLKS! CHAR DUMP REALLY DOESN'T MATTER UNLESS YOU PLAY BY THE BOOK AND REALLY ROLEPLAY. AND SINCE NO ONE DOES CHAR SUCKS!
If you want to talk RAW, then talk RAW. Don't change the rules to fit your arguments.
Except they suffer the penalty both to the amount of skill point and to the bonuses of knowledge skills.
Those who dump it doesn't care. Just like those people dumping str or char care.
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
disable device is no longer INT, it's dex.
and knowledge (local),
He don't care. It's a class skill so he still get his +3 bonus.
and he'll have a need to invest more skill points into them.
No wrong.
Becausea) Disable Device is based on dex
b) you DON'T have to maximize a skill to make it useful. This is one of the most common misconceptions in the game (I guess the Paizo staff is so tired of it they just given up.).
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.
Again, those how dump in't don't care.
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.
Not bad. I wouldn't mind the carrot since I mostly play characters with a high char, but honestly I still don't think there is a problem needed fixing.
Late as ever to the thread, but I wanted to point out something that amused me, vis a vis Charisma and Egoists and Strength and "Alpha-ness" and whanot.
I keep looking at how people are approaching stats, and keep seeing the way that they seem to be treated in an absolute vacuum, which leads me to wonder if perhaps that's a part of the reason for the whole 'dump' philosophy - the process of creating an optimized killing machine/breaker of reality/sneaky death bringer seems to assume that the rest of their qualities won't come into play aside from their exact purpose in being.
Sure, one could look at the philosophy that a HIT THINGS KILL STUFF sort might have gotten that way due to the inability to influence others via non-physical means, but that person could have gotten that way due to upbringing, childhood traumas, a failure to grasp the workings of nuance, or any number of things. All would be perfectly valid ways of presenting how someone is 18STR 7CHA, but all of them could play out differently, and it would stand to reason that some of them might be able to have more depth than the sheet of paper they're scrawled on - the one brought up to HIT THINGS KILL STUFF might have come from a family who was conversant with diplomacy, but the caught on from the earliest formative days of the PC that they would not be the sharpest tool in the proverbial shed and figured that dumb muscle with a purpose is still better than the disgrace of having a ditch digger and so raised the character that way. Someone who went martial due to childhood trauma may be witty or insightful or perhaps even wiser than they let on (dependent on INT/WIS), but their sheer level of obsession with HIT THINGS KILL STUFF brought on by their childhood trauma leaves them, to many others who would interact with them, 'one-note' and tedious...albeit good at what they do. It's more probable that that the lack of comprehension of subtlety in a HIT THINGS KILL STUFF sort would indicate the potentially disastrous combination of low-ish charisma AND wisdom, but it would go a long ways towards incentivising RP rewards for someone who is well on their way to being Epimethius reincarnated and NOT complain about not being able to play Connery-Bond rather than the more apt Craig-Bond.
What strikes me as perhaps a better handling of Charisma, existing in the way it does as a fairly feasible meta-concept, would be to keep it as a stat, but either gear conversion feats or supplemental bonuses to key from it, reflecting the sort of presence of self to really 'get it', and get it together. If it can cover personality as much as physical attributes, it should just as well cover that certain 'je ne se quois' that some people have that others lack. For things that can easily and conceivably key off of multiple stats, it would be the deciding factor of whether or not one could stack them accordingly; for people who truly want to push synergetic harmonization of a character within themselves to levels that would threaten accusations of minmaxery, without having overwhelming raw numbers, charisma could just as easily reflect someone who has less working their advantages (such as they are) together better, or allowing effective substitution of a stronger point for a weaker one. They wouldn't be as consistently effective as someone who is genuinely gifted at something, but they could sure as hell fake it in a moment of need.
Were I fixing Charisma for whatever reason, I would allow a non-caster option to be able to allow the values of Charisma bonuses to be supplementatively applied towards a specific other value of their choice, dedicatedly, changeable only via obligatory feat or at level. Dapper bladesman now has the excuse to use witty banter to improve his swordplay so that even if his opponent is obviously stronger, he still can inflict more grievous harm; your smooth-talking backstabber would still have limits with UMD, but could apply that charming self-assurance bonus towards pickpocketing ability, ending up less likely to be caught because they ARE that good. Whatever attribute/purpose it would be applied to, it could function more or less like MSG for the character sheet, NO2 for your TLA. It doesn't make your X; it makes our X better.
Alternately, and this is where it might be part of a far greater revamp than my thought process can really parse at the moment, it could be done so that all stat synergy is keyed from Charisma - classes that suffer from MAD would be less hosed if their bonuses were combined to shore up the weakest of stats, while allowing more impressive happenings from the strongest of stats, making it equally viable to go without for classes that are single-stat-keyed as it is to go with a bit of extra-mile tweakage for taking Charisma up to suitable amounts. Another approach, Charisma provides the absolute limit of cross-stat bonus applicable, or some such.
Just a couple of bits off the top of my head.
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.
No, it's not the truth and I don't even think I find a similar sentiment among a majority players
If we look at DPR. Fighter, Paladin, Summoner and Druid are the most powerful classes.If we look at the most powerful classes as in real POWER then it's wizard, Sorcerer and Druid
closely followed by Cleric, Bard, Summoner and Paladin.
POWER = Classes that can do a bit of everything.
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,
True (if he doesn't buff himself) but power does not equal DPR.
Wizards prove this. Haste is much more powerful, than fireball. At least at higher levels. And every power-gamer and optimizer playing wizard stays away from blast spells and use buff spells and battle control spells, etc.
and they're about equal (IIRC) vs. "normal" evil opponents.
Wrong. Want proof? The DPR thread proved it even though it was extremely fighter biased in its setup
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.
support class?
Let's see now, we are talking about role-playing game Pathfinder and not Diablo or neverwinter nights? It's a group of adventurers helping each other. If not, if you want to play a solo game Bard, Cleric or Pladin would be the best choise.
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.
Yes let's not talk about it. It's indeed a wonky class and as I understand it is a class that can easely be abused.
Sorcerer is a strong class, that's for sure, but within his field (arcane magic) the wizard is stronger and as such,
I never said Sorcerer is more powerful than the wizard, but it is one of the most powerful classes. With the new options to humans it might be the most powerful class but I'm not sure.
he'd have to get a quite large bonus before we would see power creep in the "arcane classes" department.Here is where you totaly lost me.
First you said Carrot. You want carrots. But if the Carrot doesn't really matter people will still dump their char.
If the Carrot does make a change, all Charisma classes will get more powerful. You can't have one without the other.
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.
An observation:
In the show 'The A-Team', the character Face rarely has the rest of the team lurking behind him when he's 'doing his thing'. Typically he skips off to work his charisma-mojo alone.
From what I recall. It's been many many years!
Likewise, in real life, if you wish to engage with someone socially and acquire a positive response, it's better to approach someone on your lonesome than with a 6' something muscle dude, a 'craaaaazy' dude, and a wrinkly dude with an oral fixation dude lurking behind you.
Tends to make people nervous..
::
It would seem plausible that a 'face' character in DnD would also choose to work alone..
..well away from the 6'+ muscle dude with the deadly weapons of war, the craaaaaazy dude who's great grandmother was a dragon/demon/tree/fish and the wrinkly dude who hears the 'voice of god' and keeps wanting to touch your wounded bits...
Tends to make people really nervous!!..
o-O
|
|
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.
That's why many GMs stop using social encounters; they get sick of running a one-man session, while the other players get bored.
Or they rush through them; either way makes the Cha-PC feel like his concept is being sidelined.Or they run the social encounters as a solo session, between group sessions. While this is a good solution for saving time and avoiding bored players, if done often, it can lead the low-Cha PCs' players to believe that guy never contributes anything to the group. They don't see the efforts behind the scenes to get them that sweet discount at the weaponsmiths, or to get the clue that puts them at the door of the BBEG's secret lair.
If the high-Cha PCs, and the low-Cha PCs are playing different games, with different rules, with different goals, at different times, that rarely intersect, that's bad for party cohesion. The majority don't see the diplomat as being 'one of the guys', who watch their back, they just see a guy who dumped Str for Cha, and think 'That guy's a dead weight.'.
Therefore, if you want to run social encounters, and keep the whole group interested during the session, you have to put some time pressure on, so the group have to delegate simultaneous activity, and dissociate some of the essential tasks from the Diplomacy skill, and let the players know that you'll give them the benefit of the doubt when they suggest using intuitive methods.
Once a player realises that his ranks of Profession (sailor) aren't just wasted background fluff that he was forced to take, that never come into play, but actually make him the best person to haggle for passage, infiltrate the pirates, persuade the captain to make a detour, put down a mutiny, he'll make more of an effort to contribute to the social encounters, and you'll see the average PC Cha slowly rise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The one thing that keeps you in the game at high level is awesome saving-throws -- and a high-CHA multiclass paladin is hard to beat in that department.
This is particularly the case in organized play such as Pathfinder Society, because modules are utterly pitiless in terms of "tailoring" to party composition (some DMs may do this on-the-fly for personal local groups, and they will certainly be popular -- but you can fuggetabout that sort of thing at a convention).
E.g.,
STR:11 ... halfling
DEX+16 (trait: -1 armor penalty)
CON:12
INT:14
WIS:08 (trait: +1 will save)
CHA+17 ... "high fantasy" 20pt buy
Lv base: Ba At Ft Rf Wi HP
01 Rogu1 00 04 02 06 01 09 SA+1d6, 10 skills, Point Blank Shot
02 pala1 01 06 04 06 03 15 Smi3+1 x1/day, Detect evil, 5 skills (favored class: paladin)
03 pala2 02 07 07 09 06 21 Smi3+2 x1/day, Loh4x1d6, divine grace, lay on hands, Precise Shot
04 rogu2 03 06 08 11 07 26 Smi4+2 x1/day, Loh5x1d6, CHA>18, evasion, Talent (combat): Rapid Shot
05 pala3 04 07 09 13 08 33 Smi4+3 x1/day, Loh5x1d6, aura courage, mercy, divine health, Weapon Finesse
06 pala4 05 08 10 14 09 40 Smi4+4 x2/day, Loh6x2d6, channel, spell (1st) 1/day
07 pala5 06 09 10 14 09 47 Smi4+5 x2/day, Loh6x2d6, spell (1st) 2/day, divine bond +1 (bow), Manyshot
08 rogu3 07 10 11 14 10 53 Smi4+5 x2/day, Loh6x2d6, STR>12, SA+2d6, (max UMD = +16/with +2 CHA item)
09 pala6 08 12 13 16 12 60 Smi6+6 x2/day, Loh7x3d6, mercy, max Sense Motive, FEAT
10 pala7 09 13 13 16 12 67 Smi6+7 x3/day, Loh7x3d6, spells (2nd)
11 pala8 10 14 14 16 13 74 Smi6+8 x3/day, Loh7x4d6, aura of resolve, divine bond +2, FEAT
12 rogu4 11 16 16 19 15 80 Smi6+8 x3/day, Loh7x4d6, uncanny dodge, DEX>17, FEAT
-- You are worthless at 1st (except for skills, which enable you to succeed in the Prestige Award game which is crucial in the long-term -- i.e., a Perform: Comedy check to tell a joke in a bar as a distraction to cover for a klutz of an ally in the process of blowing his Sleight-of-Hand to slide a supposed-to-be-hidden note to an undercover faction NPC).
-- You are a murder-machine at 7th level with four attacks/round using a bonded bow. Evil bosses drop dead on the spot when sneak-smited. You are routinely "playing up" at this point; and the money and PA are pouring in. You go on a shopping spree while low CHA builds with lousy Prestige are crying home to mommy.
-- Virtually all useful feat chains are within easy reach (Power Attack, Spring Attack, DEX 17+ prereqs, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat, etc). Your armor-check in mithril breastplate is zero, your Disable and Stealth are near max, and you can UMD anything you can buy.
-- You are the backbone of the party long before retirement (12th + one arc). The cleric can't make his Reflex save, the tanks can't make their Will saves, and the wizards can't make their Fort saves -- which leaves you to save everyone's bacon and win the day.
Every other stat has a non-skill check application that everyone gets:
Str - Carrying Capacity, Melee Attack, Damage
Dex - Initiative, Reflex Saves, AC, Ranged Attack, Ref Save
Con - HP, Fort Save
Int - Number of skill points, Bonus Languages
Wis - Will Save
Cha -It's not about making Cha "must have", it's about giving it uses if you aren't specialized in it.
Exactly. I think the point of the matter is that Charisma just feels like it needs a little "something" to give it more.. "face-time" in gameplay, as it were.
If people still want to dump it, that's fine. You can't really do too much to make Charisma into something that isn't about being persuasive (even my suggestion about area damage was still limited to those casting spells).
If you don't want/need to be persuasive, even in the extra situations where it'd be nice (without being a class ability or skill), then it shouldn't be extra detrimental. But it'd be nice if it were something similar to not having enough skill points, or encumbrance issues: something to think about, but can still be ignored if desired.
|
|
-- Virtually all useful feat chains are within easy reach (Power Attack, Spring Attack, Combat Expertise, Mounted Combat, etc), and retraining enables rapid conversion of combat techniques. Your armor-check in mithril breastplate is zero, your Disable and Stealth are near max, and you can UMD anything you can buy.
An interesting concept; I'm assuming the rogue levels are justified as being a 'detective', in the course of law and order?
I don't see where the retraining comes from, though.
Is that a rule you use in your group?
|
|
An interesting concept; I'm assuming the rogue levels are justified as being a 'detective', in the course of law and order?
If I can't find them, I can't gun them down with my bonded Oathbow. (And players of rogue/paladins should be "hip" to the counter-argument of the paladin code of chivalry applying to worthy opponents, not every opponent, should DMs try to argue that they're in violation by sneak-attacking evil bosses with ranged weapons.) -- That, and being able to Evade a high-level boss' half-dozen minion sorcerers overlapping multiple Fireballs on the party three turns in a row.
But mainly, lack of skills will screw your pooch in organized mod play as your ability to collect Prestige will bite. Already at 1st level I've played a mod in which my faction required me to conceal an undercover contact meet from non-faction allies -- the only way to do what is either A: split the party (i.e., I go off on my own to find the contact), or B: succeed in skill checks. (A) would have been a lousy choice in this particular mod since it occurred in the same location and time as a big encounter, one which I certainly wouldn't have desired to fight all by myself.) -- Quite naturally my lunkhead faction ally of a party barbarian (with a head full of rocks) just waltzes up to the NPC contact right in front of everyone (i.e., exactly what we're not supposed to do), which means my distraction was the only reason we got any Prestige at all.
A "group of regulars" low-CHA-skills tanks/wizard/cleric party in Society mod-play will excel in combat but quickly fall behind in Prestige acquisition, which means their long-term ability to purchase magical equipment in a timely manner will suffer horribly.
I don't see where the retraining comes from, though.
Shouldn't be in there (build is an edited cut-n-paste from a 3.5 Living Greyhawk organized-play campaign which included Retraining rules). Retraining isn't integral, however, as Smite + Manyshot is so sickeningly awesome that there's no way it won't be the chassis of the concept. Base-feat-only takes of Combat Expertise and Power Attack are good also-ran investments for the build. PA+Smite with two-hand Keen rapier lunge at high level? Yeah...I could do that.
Further edit: due to the way skills work in Pathfinder, there's no reason other than roleplaying not to take Paladin at 1st as opposed to Rogue to enjoy the extra 1hp differential (of max d10+half/d8 vs max d8+half/d10) over one's career. (In 3.5, Rogue at 1st would be vastly superior.)
|
|
An interesting concept; I'm assuming the rogue levels are justified as being a 'detective', in the course of law and order?
If I can't find them, I can't gun them down with my bonded Oathbow. (And players of rogue/paladins should be "hip" to the counter-argument of the paladin code of chivalry applying to worthy opponents, not every opponent, should DMs try to argue that they're in violation by sneak-attacking evil bosses with ranged weapons.)
I totally agree. Sneak Attack is simply a more precise strike. And if people have a problem with accuracy, then we'll have to disallow Weapon Focus, Vital Strike, and any increases in BAB, too, right?
And while we're on the subject of dishonourable behaviour, 'holy water' is just 'poison' for use on undead. Just sayin'...
|
|
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.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores#TOC-Charisma-C ha-
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards.
* Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate, Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
* Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
* Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting to harm undead
foes.
Emphasis mine.
Players who don't like the bolded rule try to shoehorn skill checks in place of charisma checks, ignoring things like it takes a minute of continuous interaction to do a diplomacy check to change initial attitude, meaning the initial attitude isn't determined by diplomacy.
GMs who like to keep the game moving skip the check and give the tie breaks on who the NPC likes, wants to talk to, is draw to, etc...to the higher charisma character.
But RAW, it is the check you use to attempt to influence others.
Read the other ability score descriptions and compare. And do what you want in your game and be happy. But you can't claim RAW.
|
|
If you "build" a concept around timely acquisition of a unique piece of magical weaponry (such as, in my particular case, an Oathbow), and that weapon never appears on a Society module cert, then you NEED to succeed in acquiring Prestige.
You must have (or at least have a faction PC ally with) CHA skills to routinely, effortlessly rack up Prestige, because half the time it's an out-of-combat NPC-interaction "skill check" activity.
Then there's Use Magic Device, which turns any high-CHA/high-skillpoints/high-cash character into a "pinch wizard". I.e., by 10th, when low-Prestige PCs are getting their +2 or maybe +3 weapons, I'll be at least one and maybe up to three categories better, and (hopefully) own a Haste wand which I'll successfully deploy 80-85% of the time.
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.
Good luck with that in organized play. -- If your low-CHA/low-skills fighter is Taldor faction, and the high-CHA/high-skills PC is Andoran faction, how are you going to collect Prestige? Better hope it's all combat-related....
(What I am really liking about Society play are the rewards it grants to those who build well-rounded characters rather than twinked-in-one-direction juggernauts.)
Pretty much all covered by the skill checks, except when part of a class ability or spell effect.What about this?
Checks that represent attempts to influence others
This is incorrect. The line above this one covers skills checks. The line below covers class ability. This one allows you to 'influence' others.
* Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
Players who don't like the bolded rule try to shoehorn skill checks in place of charisma checks, ignoring things like it takes a minute of continuous interaction to do a diplomacy check to change initial attitude, meaning the initial attitude isn't determined by diplomacy.
GMs who like to keep the game moving skip the check and give the tie breaks on who the NPC likes, wants to talk to, is draw to, etc...to the higher charisma character.
But RAW, it is the check you use to attempt to influence others.
Read the other ability score descriptions and compare. And do what you want in your game and be happy. But you can't claim RAW.
This is incorrect. The line above this one covers skills checks. The line below covers class ability. This one allows you to 'influence' others.Pretty much all covered by the skill checks, except when part of a class ability or spell effect.What about this?
Checks that represent attempts to influence others
Actually, that line seems to be about very specific situations in RAW, namely the spell effects that Freesword mentions.
For examples, see: Enthrall, Charm Person, and Planar Binding. These are RAW-based checks to influence others (Charisma checks).
The game simply does not have any rules for "initial attitude". The DM is left floundering and making stuff up. RAW doesn't support the GM that likes to make up stuff about who an NPC likes, talks to, etc, any more than it does to not use Charisma for that either.
To put it simply: people are suggesting adding to the Charisma rules so that there is something in place for determining initial attitudes. Not sure why there's friction on this side of the issue.
If anything, a rule on this would stop DMs from ignoring the "initial attitude" aspect of diplomacy.
|
|
What it comes down to for me is that I've played 3.X/PF with literally over a hundred different GMs, and I've very very rarely in that breadth of experience felt like CHR wasn't a smart dump stat for characters who don't need it for class features. (And, to an earlier point, I don't think there was a single one of those games that didn't at least restrict Leadership in some way, which, yes, does have a serious cost in balancing CHR.)Given that, I feel like, yeah, "But it works in my game!" is a s!%#ty answer, even if it's true, and even if, for you, there is no problem. That doesn't mean you're in any way incorrect for thinking as you do, but it doesn't help me out any more than you asserting that your kid doesn't have polio would do anything constructive if mine did have polio.
Oh, believe me, I totally know what you're talking about. I'm not trying to disagree with the notion that, in some games, Charisma really needs a bump to be useful. That's fine with me. I encourage that, in fact.
What I'm saying is that the designers assume a fair amount of roleplaying and NPC interaction, and this is the area that is covered by Charisma and its associated skills. Now, this may come up more or less in the average game, but my point is that Charisma does what it is supposed to do by RAW. Yes, I know that saying, "Well, Charisma works in my games!" is a terrible answer. What I am saying is that, going off of the original intent of Charisma (helping to give a mechanical basis to help the DM determine the reactions of NPCs to dialogue from the PCs), the attribute works fine as it is, because in the average game it's going to come up sometimes, just like many other skills will at some point, and just like damage rolls will come up as well.
I'm not at all trying to say "You're playing the wrong way" or any other such nonsense. I'm trying to say that, RAW, Charisma is no more or less valuable of an attribute than any other, depending on a variety of factors including player intent and GM discretion, again, just like every other attribute.
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.
Well yeah, you're the other half of the thread. :)
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.
Sounds like a perfect dungeons and dragons party to me. What's the problem? Ever watch the A Team?
I am sad the A-Team was not included in your post.
Grr. Beat me to it. The A-Team is a perfect example of an adventuring party. BA dumped CHA. Face didn't.
I loved this post:
"dump stats" in general are easily fixed.
step 1:
Apply. All. Rules.[....]
Step 2:
Apply. All. Rules.
Bingo.
* Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
Players who don't like the bolded rule try to shoehorn skill checks in place of charisma checks, ignoring things like it takes a minute of continuous interaction to do a diplomacy check to change initial attitude, meaning the initial attitude isn't determined by diplomacy.
GMs who like to keep the game moving skip the check and give the tie breaks on who the NPC likes, wants to talk to, is draw to, etc...to the higher charisma character.
But RAW, it is the check you use to attempt to influence others.
Read the other ability score descriptions and compare. And do what you want in your game and be happy. But you can't claim RAW.
This is incorrect. The line above this one covers skills checks. The line below covers class ability. This one allows you to 'influence' others.Pretty much all covered by the skill checks, except when part of a class ability or spell effect.What about this?
Checks that represent attempts to influence others
Actually, that line seems to be about very specific situations in RAW, namely the spell effects that Freesword mentions.
For examples, see: Enthrall, Charm Person, and Planar Binding. These are RAW-based checks to influence others (Charisma checks).
The game simply does not have any rules for "initial attitude". The DM is left floundering and making stuff up. RAW doesn't support the GM that likes to make up stuff about who an NPC likes, talks to, etc, any more than it does to not use Charisma for that either.
To put it simply: people are suggesting adding to the Charisma rules so that there is something in place...
This.
If there was actual rules for it, things would be completely different.
people who are saying "high cha make people like you more" basically ignore a number of KOS monsters with high cha.
The initial attitude would be a combination of your class, cha, race, the npcs predisposition, equipment, gender, and a variety of other things.
But there isn't any rules for that.
Being an evil GM, in both cases I'm occasionally going to make the player feel that character weakness they've designed; it's part of my job as a GM to acknowledge and highlight character details and uniqueness, especially glaring weaknesses or glorious strengths. A weak wizard is sometimes going to be asked to carry things, or pull things, or fight STR-drainers. A sluggish plate-clad paladin is going to have to give chase across rooftops, through crowds, or across water. A socially inept fighter or barbarian is going to have his opinion asked, or give a small dissertation, or convince someone of something.
(I like to drop in that one contentious counselor, who, after the party's face has blown away the Diplomacy DC's, mutters to the king, "Majesty, surely we should know the character of all the people we are sending to act in Your name. What does the brutish one in the back have to say?")
That being said, I generally introduce these things when a particular character's capability has been outshining everyone else for a while (especially after a long combat); it's time to remind them they have a weakness, and the other characters have strengths.
On the other side of the fence, I don't want rules to adjudicate NPC reaction or interaction. Quantifying personality and effectiveness in communication (beyond the simple CHA attribute and related skills and mechanics) is just going to make my job as a GM harder, and make more opportunities for my players to abuse and 'game' the system - and I'm already weak on rules and numbers, as a GM.
For the NPC reaction rules crowd, they seem to not want to rely on 'GM fiat.' In any games I play which are not from a published source (APs, modules), everything is GM fiat. I just happened to fiat it before we sat down to play, and if it's not working out the way I wanted, you better believe I'm going to fiat it as we play. I see that as my primary purpose as a GM - guide the story along in a way that's enjoyable to the group as a whole, and for the most part as individuals, regardless of what my prepared materials (or even sometimes the rules) say.
Conversely, I wouldn't mind some bonus social systems I could drop into play. Sometimes I'm not on the top of my game mentally, and I love little minigame systems (knivesies, the rooftop chase, and harrow points, from Curse of the Crimson Throne), or other ways to put unexpected events into the players' hands (critical hit deck, hero/action points; my vote is still undecided on the plot twist cards). I feel it would be more appropriate, if such a social rules system was expressed, that rather than being The Standard by which all PFRPG social encounters are handled, it be put into play for a specific module, AP, or encounter. Then, as a GM, if I like how it went it will find its way into other things I do, without ever being cramping my style. Such a system would make a great 3PP book...
And, finally, just to write something outside of a spoiler block, if a character has a dumped CHA, but a player has no explanation, my general assumption is that the character is unnoticeable. That seems to give just enough of a social dig to the ultra-powerful character, without actually punishing it.
|
|
"Like" has nothing to do with it.
Dragons have a high charisma because when a dragon says jump, you say "how high"
Charima is your ability it influence others. The check isn't "some" checks to influence. No other feats have a sentence like this in the description. It is specific to charisna.
Charisma is both Darth Vader and Marylyn Monroe. Both could influence people to do what they wanted.
If you want to hand wave the check, it is your game. But it is written in the rules.
|
|
Characters don't jump for the dragon because of its Cha, they do it because the dragon will eat them if they don't. :P
Absolutely, and that is my point.
Devils have even higher charisma, because they are able to make people do what they want them to do.
That is charisma.
People get stuck on the "pretty" and miss the point. It isn't the how you influence people to do what you want. It is that they do it.
Leading out of fear vs leading because you are loved. Both are still leading.
Dumb and tough...they can intimidate you, but you aren't following them anywhere since you can just as likely influence them to follow you.
I think Charisma does exactly what it's suppose to do. Do I want a more robust social mechanic? Not particularly. Do I want more interesting options for Charisma. Sure do. I've created plenty of interesting thing for Charisma, including using it as one of 6 saving throws (no I don't think it should replace Wisdom for Will Saves, there are some things Wisdom makes more sense for).
Should Charisma have an additional effect like Strength's encumbrance? No. I think Strength's encumbrance should be skill based not stat based. I'm a firm believer that stats should modify effects, not be them themselves. There's not enough differentiation between numbers to make sense. And no matter how strong you are, if you lift that boulder with your back instead of your legs, you ain't gonna be lifting anything. Lifting is a skill, so is the correct way to carry things. Dump it under the often talked about Athletics skill and require a roll.
Intelligence should have no effect on skill points. It's experience that dictates that, which is actually more clearly represented by Wisdom. Leveling to gain skill points works just fine. Just raise everyone's skill points per a level by +2 and remove the mechanic.
Wisdom only effects saves, which all abilities scores do, so there's nothing to deal with here.
Constitution doesn't really have any game effects other than bonus to HP which is a modifier. Move endurance effects and holding one's breath under that new Athletics skill and move on.
Dexterity modifies AC and Attack rolls (saves are spread out now). Dexterity has no base effects in themselves. It's already handicapped already by not getting melee attack rolls (which it should have since Str has none or limited effect on actually being able to hit something). So let it go.
Attack rolls (str and dex) modify to hit rolls, especially for martial characters, while Wis, Int, Cha modify spell DCs for their appropriate class. It's all balanced there.
Damage rolls are an issue but you could just use Dex for ranged damage rolls and use Wis, Int, Cha to modify spell damage (although spell damage is usually modified by level, which melee and ranged attacks aren't, so it's balanced anyway).
I am more in favor of decreasing ability scores impact on the game, than on finding a more robust use for CHA. You want to carry more, invest in the athletics skill. If you want to have more skill points, take a feat. If Dexterity is too good a stat, replace the dex bonus to AC with a feat that does the same and make it cost (ie replace Dodge +1 with +Dex to AC).
There are plenty of ways to balance the ability scores without increasing the effectiveness of Cha. Leave roleplaying to roleplaying and not to dice rolling. There are a few skills that do enough to get the ball rolling, nothing more is needed.
There are plenty of ways to balance the ability scores without increasing the effectiveness of Cha. Leave roleplaying to roleplaying and not to dice rolling. There are a few skills that do enough to get the ball rolling, nothing more is needed.
This is a logical fallacy. If dice are never introduced into a "roleplaying" scenario, then Pathfinder isn't actually a roleplaying "game". It's a miniatures combat game, that people just roleplay on their own in between combats.
I have played in game systems that have complex social rules and games that don't. The games that don't, the quality of the roleplaying relies totally on the group. The game systems that have complex social rules, tend to have MORE roleplaying. In addition, the roleplaying tends to be more focused on things that are important, because the complex rules have various modes for "quick and dirty" for simple interactions, and long form interactions for crucial scenes.
Now, that isn't to say that every complex social system is perfect. Too many dice rolls, or too restrictive of options is just as bad or worse than no rules at all. The benefit of rules though, is that everyone at the table knows that the action failed or succeeded, because the dice tell you. The GM and players are still there to interpret the dice and roleplay out the dialogue.
Everyone accepts that dice determine the outcome of combat. A lot of factors influence the dice and the GM and/or players are in control of those factors. They also get to interpret the consequences of various actions and the combat as a whole. You just killed the king, but does that mean the country is thrown into civil war? Or does his successor step up and rule justly and everyone lives happily ever after?
Same goes for social interaction. The rules tell you if you rolled high enough to convince the king to help. What form that help comes in and why, are still roleplaying.
Just because you pick up a die, doesn't mean you aren't roleplaying. In fact, in many various systems I've seen, the act of picking up dice, or deciding which dice to roll actually are based on decisions your character is actively making, which means that rolling dice IS roleplaying in those games.
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,True (if he doesn't buff himself) but power does not equal DPR.
Wizards prove this. Haste is much more powerful, than fireball. At least at higher levels. And every power-gamer and optimizer playing wizard stays away from blast spells and use buff spells and battle control spells, etc.
Sure, but the paladin's schtick is DPR mainly (with some limited buffing and healing) so when comparing his power, it's his DPR that is most relevant (though other abilities shouldn't be fully neglected).
The paladin isn't a wizard, so I don't know why you're dragging the wizard into the mix. The wizard is (at high levels) a more powerful class than both paladin and fighter, no doubt. And he isn't cha-based.Wrong. Want proof? The DPR thread proved it even though it was extremely fighter biased in its setup
and they're about equal (IIRC) vs. "normal" evil opponents.
That may be. That's why I said IIRC. Now, looking at the comparision, Farshot Fallon had DPR ~68 while Pinpoint Paty had ~70 when smiting regular evil. About equal. It may be that there's updated versions later in the thread, didn't go through all the pages, but whatever. They're not miles apart from each other in any event.
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.support class?
Let's see now, we are talking about role-playing game Pathfinder and not Diablo or neverwinter nights? It's a group of adventurers helping each other. If not, if you want to play a solo game Bard, Cleric or Pladin would be the best choise.
What? That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I don't know how you even made that connection. What I said was that it's a strong class, but since it's power is mainly in increasing the power of others, giving him a boost has less risk of making him outshine others.
If we give a semi-warrior class such as monk or rogue a noticeable boost to fighting skills, it risks outshining the fighter. If we give rangers boosts to skills it risks outshining the rogue. And so on. A boost to bards has far less risk to do so, since their main ability is increasing the potential of others - it has less risk to "steal the spotlight" in non-social situations (which is his other specialty, together with "buffing").
Here is where you totaly lost me.
First you said Carrot. You want carrots. But if the Carrot doesn't really matter people will still dump their char.
If the Carrot does make a change, all Charisma classes will get more powerful. You can't have one without the other.
Yeah, and I'm claiming that giving charisma based classes some boost isn't really an issue since they usually aren't the strongest class in their most common "role". Strongest fighter is fighter (in my opinion; it's certainly discussable and depends on how common evil opponents or certain favored enemies are, but in my campaigns neutral opponents are far more common than the Big Evil, and many opponents are more common than a BBEG). Strongest caster is wizard, not sorcerer. Strongest skill-user is rogue, not bard. Bard IS the strongest support class, but since he's the only support class without any other "schtick" in combat, he can be strongest and there's not really a problem in my opinion.
The exception, I've now realized, would be oracles, which are considered on par with (or by some even stronger than) clerics. I've never seen an oracle in action though, as we tend to have pretty few divine characters.
Also, giving characters more "schticks" is easier to balance than increasing the powers of those they have, and increasing defences is easier to balance than attacks.
I'm running a fairly high roleplay style, higher than standard for D&D, and I often require social skill checks. To me, this isn't a BIG problem personally, but I can see why in some peoples games, which are still RAW games just like my are, this will be a problem. I like rules tinkering and the ease with which you can modify the d20 system is one of the reasons why I use it and not another system. So, I'm more here because I find house rules an interesting topic and like to chime in on what I think a certain house rule will or will not achieve, and so on.
If that were true, then D&D would never have been considered a roleplaying game.
If that were true, then D&D would never have been considered a roleplaying game.
You're right, which is why I consider the concept "rolling dice means you're not roleplaying" to be untrue. If you make that assumption, than you would have to assume there is zero roleplaying going on during combat.
People may have a preference to keep dice out of dialogue, but my own experience is that it can work when done well. Just like bad combat rules make for bad combat, bad social rules make for bad social interaction. When people complain about GM fiat, the best solution is to remove fiat, and make a rule.
It can take a little practice to get used to the concept, but a good set of rules actually make social interaction better in my experience. People who are "good roleplayers" can usually pick up social rules and turn them into good roleplaying scenes. Just like a good GM or player can make combat fun by describing an attack roll, the same is applied to dialogue. Rolling doesn't prevent or exclude dialogue and descriptions.
|
|
the paladin's schtick is DPR mainly (with some limited buffing and healing) so when comparing his power, it's his DPR that is most relevant (though other abilities shouldn't be fully neglected).
Actually their schtick is durability, particularly saving-throws (which most players ignore until it's "too late").
Typical example of overpowered one-trick DPR builds which die like mice at higher levels: fighter/ranger/barbarian Drizzt clones. While on their feet, they can slice & dice a dragon -- but they fail vs 2nd-level Glitterdust or Hideous Laughter every time, lose their DEX bonus, then get their worthless flatfoot AC beaten silly by full-BAB Power Attacks. They require tons of party support to stay in the game, meaning if the rest of the PCs have their hands full, they're in trouble. Eventually they eat a two-hander PA crit, and go straight to -34.
Sure, but the paladin's schtick is DPR mainly (with some limited buffing and healing) so when comparing his power, it's his DPR that is most relevant (though other abilities shouldn't be fully neglected).
No I don't agree. It is not his DPR that is most relevant. It's the mix between DPR, Buff, Healing, Durability (good saves, good AC, swift healing, mercies, auras, spells, etc), and high charisma that is most relevant.
I would also say a Paladins buffing and healing are far from limited.
The paladin isn't a wizard, so I don't know why you're dragging the wizard into the mix.
It was an example of "power is not equal damage". Anyone seen a skilled player playing a wizard know this and the tier system also proves this rather well.
Now, looking at the comparison, Farshot Fallon had DPR ~68 while Pinpoint Paty had ~70 when smiting regular evil. About equal.
[...]
They're not miles apart from each other in any event.
A) I never said they're miles apart from each other
B) The DPR thread is set up in a way that it always favors the fighter since basically it's only the 'always on' abilities (such as feats and weapon training) that counts and DR isn't taken into equation. Adding self buffs like divine bond, divine power etc. is 'illegal'.and BTW the top DPR in that thread is the summoner.
What? That doesn't have anything to do with what I said. I don't know how you even made that connection. What I said was that it's a strong class, but since it's power is mainly in increasing the power of others, giving him a boost has less risk of making him outshine others.
Ah, I misread you. Good point.
Strongest fighter is fighter
The strongest bard is the bard ;-)
My point was the most powerful class is not the fighter. I would say Paladin, Oracle, Summoner, Sorcerer and even a well build Bard are more powerful...and more versatile....and they got charisma
I find house rules an interesting topic and like to chime in on what I think a certain house rule will or will not achieve, and so on.
I wasn't aware this thread was ablaut house rules. I thought it was about the rules. If people want to house rule, fine. NP from me.
My response is not based on a dislike of social mechanics, I just have a preference for my D&D not having them. If I'm playing any other game, sure, why not, but my history with the game has not relied or needed them in 20 some years. If it ain't broke and all that.
Now that isn't to say that Cha can't be tweaked and made more interesting. For instance, I've experimented with using Cha based skills during combat to determine who the baddies attack (a high roll let you encourage or dissuade the attacker to choose you - the rogue player liked maxing out his bluff so he could dissuade creatures from attacking him after he used sneak attack, while a low roll allowed the baddie to make the decision based on what was most advantageous to him, including ignoring the fighter and moving around to attack the wizard). It wasn't fully developed so it had issues, but I might revisit them at some point.
I don't particularly like dice rolling during social situations since my NPC interactions have a predetermined set of variables. If players act this way, the reaction is this, if they do that, then the reaction is different. If players need assistance, they can make appropriate checks (dip, bluff, intimidate) during the interaction. You can talk the unfriendly guard into helping you or you can make a roll and see if you can alter his mood. If you're character has a low Cha and the guard has a low Cha, you might relate better. Maybe he's got a thing about hating those high Cha people out there. That doesn't mean you'll get along, but maybe that one commonality helps the situation. A good Knowledge (local) may help you out with that. When it comes to pure Cha, I don't see high or low as being the determining factor in the results. Two low Cha orcs may get along better than one low Cha orc and a high Cha human, I don't want dice to determine that unless it's an attempt to salvage a bad RP situation.
For me, the "game" part is the combat section of the game, the rest of the time dice rolling is optional, as long as you aren't in any immediate danger, I assume a ten on most rolls and go from there.
Actually in 2nd edition there was in fact actual rules for social encounters.
I guess my Wall O'Text didn't merit a reply, so I'll offer a Cliff Notes version.
Stats make sense as absolute values, with Charisma as the mitigation of the perceived negatives that would accompany the positives.
High strength is awesome for combat, but might lead people to think you're a bullying menace. High strength with a decent Charisma makes one much less daunting and more awe-inspiring.
Dexterous people might seem deceitful, constantly trying to pull one over others, or hyperactive spazzes, but all it takes is a bit of Charisma to take suspicions off.
A person with a high Intelligence could be the most brilliant mind you've ever encountered, but could be utterly incapable of conveying it in a manner that isn't insulting, demeaning, and offensive. with Charisma, you go from Generic Professor to Bill Nye (just to use an example).
High Wisdom might manifest as someone being an obnoxious know it all...but with a touch of Charisma they are actually APPROACHED by all for their amazing insight, rather than avoided because it comes forth unsolicited all the time.
Constitution at the upper end might simply make you look like a corn-fed lummox, regardless of strength to match - but a sprinkle of Charisma at least assures you won't be seen as 'big dumb idiot'.
TL;DR Other stats are absolutes, Charisma is the modifier.
Side tangent - I like social interactions, and loved the Dynasties and Demagogues supplement. I like skill 'combat' and debate 'duels' and other situations where social skills are given a metaphorical level-up in the way the Ace Attorney series did for the video game version of the Legal Profession. Put another way, they're like my way of adding the proverbial 'R3' missions from Grand Theft Auto into my campaigns, when they get too hack'n'slashy. A fair number do involve Charisma-working, but only because of what tends to be involved.
I imagine having classes that require Charisma but don't have class skills to support it (I'm glaring at you Sorcerer) then they really should probably doesn't help poor Charisma in it's effort to be loved as a useful stat might be.
Should Charisma have an additional effect like Strength's encumbrance? No.
It actually does. Strength determines how much you can carry, Charisma determines (in large part) how many followers you can carry with leadership.
My response is not based on a dislike of social mechanics, I just have a preference for my D&D not having them. If I'm playing any other game, sure, why not, but my history with the game has not relied or needed them in 20 some years. If it ain't broke and all that.
Now that isn't to say that Cha can't be tweaked and made more interesting. For instance, I've experimented with using Cha based skills during combat to determine who the baddies attack (a high roll let you encourage or dissuade the attacker to choose you - the rogue player liked maxing out his bluff so he could dissuade creatures from attacking him after he used sneak attack, while a low roll allowed the baddie to make the decision based on what was most advantageous to him, including ignoring the fighter and moving around to attack the wizard). It wasn't fully developed so it had issues, but I might revisit them at some point.
I don't particularly like dice rolling during social situations since my NPC interactions have a predetermined set of variables. If players act this way, the reaction is this, if they do that, then the reaction is different. If players need assistance, they can make appropriate checks (dip, bluff, intimidate) during the interaction. You can talk the unfriendly guard into helping you or you can make a roll and see if you can alter his mood. If you're character has a low Cha and the guard has a low Cha, you might relate better. Maybe he's got a thing about hating those high Cha people out there. That doesn't mean you'll get along, but maybe that one commonality helps the situation. A good Knowledge (local) may help you out with that. When it comes to pure Cha, I don't see high or low as being the determining factor in the results. Two low Cha orcs may get along better than one low Cha orc and a high Cha human, I don't want dice to determine that unless it's an attempt to salvage a bad RP situation.
For me, the "game" part is the combat section of the game, the rest of the time dice rolling is optional, as long as you...
With the ideas in this post, you're not wrong. As long as your group is having a good time, there really isn't anything wrong.
Some of the people talking about how Charisma is low are also pointing out how it seems to have no effect on social situations. DM Fiat has been brought up as a means of correcting this, but the flaws of that style have also been pointed out. For people who dislike DM Fiat (that includes some DM's), the option then is to turn to more defined rules. For those people, a better set of social mechanics would be great.
In the various games I've played, I've seen "roleplaying", having your character make decisions instead of the player, happen during combat, when the most dice are being rolled. To me, rolling dice and roleplaying are not mutually exclusive concepts and to present them as such is a logical fallacy, but a lot of people accept that notion as gospel.
As mentioned earlier: Social encounters are mostly a one-man show, as the situations mostly calls for a one-to-one conversation.
And if you look at the game from a mechanical perspective and compare this to any other skill, like say Disable Device; does anyone think it silly or strange that only one member of the party (rogue/urban ranger/alchemist) knows how to do this? Or wilderness survival (ranger/druid)? Or copious amounts of knowledge skills (wizard/bard).
I think having one guy specialized in social matters is plenty believable, as that is a field of expertise as much as trapfinding, tracking and monster lore. I would rather have everyone master their own specialization, and thus up the overall competence of the party as a unit, rather than have four dabblers that will fail any advanced check.
What people seem to confuse is that social skills =/= RP. RP is the part where people are in character and talks among themselves, with NPCs and do stuff to flesh out their characters, and make them come to life. I RP as much with my smelly drunkard mutagen-focused alchemist that has Cha8 and only one social skill (intimidate), and will likely fail at any and all attempts to sway someone apart from scaring the weak of will... as I do with my Cha20/maxed diplomacy paladin that can convince most anyone of anything. In many ways, the RP with the Cha8 guy is even more interesting.
Should Charisma have an additional effect like Strength's encumbrance? No.It actually does. Strength determines how much you can carry, Charisma determines (in large part) how many followers you can carry with leadership.
And if leadership was a free feat then it could be more like str.