Charisma is useful if you intend to take eldritch heritage. which rocks for many martial builds. Orc and Abyssal are good bloodlines to choose for the strength bonus. and pit touched grants a decent constitution bonus.
wanna know what balances charisma?
the eldritch heritage line.
that feat line turns investing a 13 in charisma and spending 16,000 gold on a charisma headband into +6 strength for martials.
wanna know what balances charisma?
the eldritch heritage line.
that feat line turns investing a 13 in charisma and spending 16,000 gold on a charisma headband into +6 strength for martials.
Well, actually +1 strength. Most martials worth their salt will get a +5 inherent modifier by 20th level either with consumable items or planar binding or some other method that is simple for post 13th level PCs. You're only looking at +1 higher, since they don't stack.
|
Well, actually +1 strength. Most martials worth their salt will get a +5 inherent modifier by 20th level either with consumable items or planar binding or some other method that is simple for post 13th level PCs. You're only looking at +1 higher, since they don't stack.
True, but it saves a crapload of GP (or wishes, or something). Like enough to boost other stats more than enough to compensate for the cost of the increased Charisma.
Unless they're adding 5 to everything with Wishes, of course...but that gets problematic, depending on GM.
|
|
Well, actually +1 strength. Most martials worth their salt will get a +5 inherent modifier by 20th level either with consumable items or planar binding or some other method that is simple for post 13th level PCs. You're only looking at +1 higher, since they don't stack.wanna know what balances charisma?
the eldritch heritage line.
that feat line turns investing a 13 in charisma and spending 16,000 gold on a charisma headband into +6 strength for martials.
Planar Binding?
|
|
i believe he would be talking about this:
A small percentage of djinn are noble. Noble djinn, often called viziers, have 10 Hit Dice, Strength 23, and Charisma 17, and can grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only) who captures them. Djinn nobles are CR 8
Oh I know, I just take every opportunity when someone is trying to advocate what I think is some ridiculous cheese move to have them do so on the record so everyone knows what their style is.
It helps clarify positions on the debate.
i believe he would be talking about this:
A small percentage of djinn are noble. Noble djinn, often called viziers, have 10 Hit Dice, Strength 23, and Charisma 17, and can grant three wishes to any being (nongenies only) who captures them. Djinn nobles are CR 8Oh I know, I just take every opportunity when someone is trying to advocate what I think is some ridiculous cheese move to have them do so on the record so everyone knows what their style is.
It helps clarify positions on the debate.
Yeah, ridiculous cheese moves... like casting continual flame. Yeah, I don't ever, ever, ever want you to say another thing about anyone's games ever, ever again.
But yes, popping an efreeti out and pullin' an Aladdin is what I was talking about. Simulacrum works as well. There are other methods as well, but these are the most direct and honest. To any GM who can handle a 13+ level game, the stat adjustments are nary a blip on the power radar.
But yes, popping an efreeti out and pullin' an Aladdin is what I was talking about. Simulacrum works as well. There are other methods as well, but these are the most direct and honest.See what I mean.
Thanks Ashiel, I really couldn't have made the point any more clearly.
You're welcome.
|
|
I like it when we get along.
For the record, I think we just come from completely different schools of thought on how to play the game, and both advocate positions on the boards because we very much want to have a wider community of people who follow our play style available to game with, and because we know that the boards can shape changes in the game.
But it is often important for the debate to make clear where all the parties involved come from, in general.
I wish you would take Kirth's approach, but then again I bet you feel the same about me.
Particularly in my group, there's a divided camp on this idea.
As far as "role playing" goes, some people I know argue that Charisma mechanics lend more toward "roll playing" rather than forcing the player to think about their character's personality and responding accordingly.
People who are ignoring their character's personality aren't likely to start paying attention to it just because the mechanics of Charisma are taken away. It varies from case-to-case, but I don't think anyone is helped just by creating a rules vacuum.
It also sort of sounds to me like people are wanting to get by on their natural level of social skills rather than deal with the occasional failure the dice hand them. I play with a lot of CS and Engineering graduates, and a few tried to use their natural 16+ Int scores rather than the 10 or less they had put on their characters. I reminded them of what they did on their point buy, and that the athletes in the room can't similarly use their own fencing prowess during combat sessions. (We'd have to LARP for that, I imagine.)
But that argument aside, Mechanically Charisma is good for ONLY those skills unless you're a caster.
Strength is pretty useless for a wide variety of casters and "do-it-all Dex" builds. Handy Haversacks and Freedom of Movement really help cement this at higher levels. Charisma sucks for a lot of people, Strength sucks for some people. The game has evolved, and the stats aren't equal anymore. It happens.
As for only needing one "Face" character- depends on how things are run. In a traditional game, you only need one Bluff check, Diplomacy check or Gather Information check to talk to the King or get your next quest hook. If your DM thinks that negotiating better pay from the noble who hired you qualifies as a "social encounter," you are probably going to be unhappy playing a Face. Conversely, actual cardsharps and other con men almost always operate in groups, simply because the number of ways to dupe a mark go up enormously with more people. Even if they are splitting the profits each way, the success rate goes up enough that it is worth it up to a certain point. Both engaging in con artistry and counter-conning are fun possibilities, and not everyone involved has to have the same skill set (Charisma 5 Dwarf Barbarian can make a great distraction- as long as she can wait for the signal before causing a ruckus). With creativity, you can create situations in which even Paladins can join in without violating their code (however you interpret it).
low Cha does not mean you get to just hide and blend in to the background. It doesn't get a non reaction it gets a BAD reaction.What's your definition for a 'BAD reaction'? Do you mean that characters are less likely to like the high charisma character?
I mean, I agree that characters with low charisma are more likely to get a BAD reaction. I define a BAD reaction as being ignored (except when being ignored is beneficial).
Could a bad reaction just be anything other than the one they were trying for, and not just dismissal? Social situations are as varied as people's personalities.
There are people who won't respect anyone they don't think has "backbone," like some sort of neo-Norse setting. An intimidate against them might make them friendly ("I like your style! Put away that sword. Your message will get to the elder."), or if it fails, they might test you. Fail badly enough, and they might laugh or just take offense and challenge you.
If the character has tanked Charisma, but is also an extremely bizarre or dangerous race or class (Minotaur, lizardfolk, renowned evil necromancer, that sort of thing) people obviously don't just dismiss or ignore them due to low Charisma. Nor is the best way to "get ignored" to have the party witch hex you with Misfortune and try to deliver a rousing sermon (and I know you know that, but your words can be misconstrued as they are).
I have to say, having regularly played casters with <10 strength, that low score is definitely something to worry about if you're tracking encumbrance properly.
I have to say, having regularly played casters with <10 strength, that low score is definitely something to worry about if you're tracking encumbrance properly.
Depending on the circumstances and the campaign, muleback cords are ridiculously cheap for their utility, and they complement the bags of holding et al. you'll be able to afford later very well. In a "default" game, you can get cords by or at level 2, or craft them yourself by 3 with the game's most useful crafting feat. YMMV, of course, especially if you spend a good chunk of the game away from civilization or have crafting nerfed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the cords is that they occupy the back slot, which goes to the very necessary cloak of resistance.
I've never used any of those cords. Likewise, I've played quite a few PCs (and NPCs) who tanked Strength. There's not a lot of downside to carrying a medium load, unless you plan to be swimming. The DC to climb a knotted rope is low enough that even with a pretty mean penalty, you can take 10 and do it. Meanwhile, medium load means your Dex is capped at +3 and you move 20 ft. Not killer. Likewise, most classes that tank strength don't wear armor (biggest contributor to weight), and tend to easily adapt without lots of the common tools.
For example, if I'm playing a Wizard at 1st level, and I've tanked Strength, then I need to carry my spellbook, and my component's pouch. Everything else past that is optional. I wouldn't even be out of my light load.
Incidentally, I track all my carrying capacity, including my ammo.
And if you're a dwarf wizard, medium load isn't that big a deal. :)
Oh ho ho, those dwarf wizards are nice. Sure, the lack of +Int is a little dicey, but +2 Con and Wisdom, combined with the +2 vs magic and poisons is sexay. :P
I've never used any of those cords. Likewise, I've played quite a few PCs (and NPCs) who tanked Strength. There's not a lot of downside to carrying a medium load, unless you plan to be swimming. The DC to climb a knotted rope is low enough that even with a pretty mean penalty, you can take 10 and do it. Meanwhile, medium load means your Dex is capped at +3 and you move 20 ft. Not killer. Likewise, most classes that tank strength don't wear armor (biggest contributor to weight), and tend to easily adapt without lots of the common tools.
For example, if I'm playing a Wizard at 1st level, and I've tanked Strength, then I need to carry my spellbook, and my component's pouch. Everything else past that is optional. I wouldn't even be out of my light load.
Incidentally, I track all my carrying capacity, including my ammo.
I wonder how many people track encumbrence from clothing...
I wonder how many people track encumbrence from clothing...
In the game I GM worn clothes and armor counts half.
I did that because having myself often worn chainarmor (somewhere between mail and shirt) I can tell that it is much easier to wear it than to carry it.
My Bard character and my Sorcerer character disagree that Charisma sucks.
If a class gives you other reasons to care about Charisma, then naturally it's a valuable stat. The crux of the thread (at this point) is that barring special class features Charisma doesn't do much besides affect skills, and attribute points are a very inefficient way to improve your skills.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder how many people track encumbrence from clothing...I've never used any of those cords. Likewise, I've played quite a few PCs (and NPCs) who tanked Strength. There's not a lot of downside to carrying a medium load, unless you plan to be swimming. The DC to climb a knotted rope is low enough that even with a pretty mean penalty, you can take 10 and do it. Meanwhile, medium load means your Dex is capped at +3 and you move 20 ft. Not killer. Likewise, most classes that tank strength don't wear armor (biggest contributor to weight), and tend to easily adapt without lots of the common tools.
For example, if I'm playing a Wizard at 1st level, and I've tanked Strength, then I need to carry my spellbook, and my component's pouch. Everything else past that is optional. I wouldn't even be out of my light load.
Incidentally, I track all my carrying capacity, including my ammo.
Incidentally, probably not many, AFAIK. I think most people ignore the one outfit that you're currently wearing, and only track the spare clothes you're carrying with you (which seems reasonable, since wearing clothing is easier than carrying it). Even if not, common clothes are only 2 lb. (1 lb. for small creatures), and most aren't over 5 lbs.
That being said, if you look at the folks who would dump Strength both 3.x and Pathfinder, you'll notice they're not exactly wandering about with heavy clothing. Hennet the Sorcerer, Mialee the Wizard, and Seoni the Sorcress are practically naked in terms of how useful their clothes are. Seoni's is mostly some strips of cloth in the right places to avoid being arrested for exposure (not that we complain, as she looks quite good in rags and tattoos).
Actually, I dump con.
But in second edition Int did a couple of things beyond the casting stuff. A high enough int gave you immunity all the way up to 7th level illusion spells, and up to 20 languages.
Wisdom gave some magical defense adjustment (Which obviously has grown into will saves), and high amounts of wisdom gave immunity to charms and compulsions.
And Charisma automatically gave you leadership. As well as starting off with peoples reaction to your character. Ranging from BURN IT NOW! to Oh Hi mark, to Morgan Freeman.
The biggest Issue with stats, is if we make them all too important for all the classes, we run into issue of making everyone MAD. In this reguard I would have to say that perhaps forth edition did have one thing right, and that was having somethings two stats could cover. Like Init being Dex or Wis, Will saves being Wis or Cha, reflex saves being dex or int, etc.
This again was a practice back during 2nd edition with the black books. (Oddly enough those books tried to take the six stats we have now and make them twelve stats as well. )
The biggest Issue with stats, is if we make them all too important for all the classes, we run into issue of making everyone MAD.
Is it really so bad if everyone was MAD and each stat had clear advantages and disadvantages in their own niche ?
2) If you allow 3.5 material, there was quite a few options that were nice. The Force of Personality feat allowed you to apply your Charisma bonus to your Will saves, for example.
No longer needed. Steadfast Personality is a PF feat that does this.
/cevah
What if Cha did this..
"Decrease the cost of buying objects by a %, and increase the gain for selling objects by a %"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if Cha did this..
"Decrease the cost of buying objects by a %, and increase the gain for selling objects by a %"
Every party now has one max cha guy buying everything, while the rest of the party has dumped cha.
The problem with buffing cha is it's already an amazing stat with the right build (several cha-to-X feats, class features, etc), but it's almost useless under other circumstances.
Well then we've got an improvement, because people must not have had that one guy before.
Well then we've got an improvement, because people must not have had that one guy before.
They probably already had a guy with high cha, Paladins, Oracles and Sorcerers are pretty popular, they now just have them do the shopping. It just gives a discount to everyone.
How about a system in a similar vein to hero points, but you start each session with an amount equal to your cha mod with various penalties to that number from having cha-to-X feats, cha spellcasting and cha class features (except skills). It makes cha useful for everyone and doesn't make it overpowered when used in conjuction with the various aforementioned "several cha-to-X feats, class features, etc".
Well, what I'm hearing is that Charisima needs to be a stat that causes you not to die, as do all the mental type stats.
Because if the uses for them are slow enough you can have one person with it in the party, then the stat absolutely sucks.
I like to run high charisma characters, partly because my fantasy of heroes are more often than not people with high charisma, whether due to attractive appearance or appealing personality or both. There are a number of classes where a high charisma is a plus, particularly bard and oracle.
For bard, it boosts the performance skills, provides extra spells per day, higher DCs for spells and bardic performances, and gives more bardic performances.
For oracles, there are again the DCs for spells, extra spells, and Charisma is the basis for the bonuses or number of uses of many of the special abilities. I have a 4th level oracle with 18 Cha and if she uses the spiritual weapon spell, she gets +7 to hit, even though her strength is 7. She's one of my favorite characters.
Swashbucklers get a number of abilities and bonuses based on Charisma. Paladins, of course, get perks related to Charisma (in the original D&D, a high charisma was a prerequisite for being a paladin).
So while a high charisma doesn't translate into being a bigger, badder fighter, it certainly gives certain classes a lot of value. And a high strength is not much use to a wizard or sorcerer, since these classes typically do not charge into battle but use their intelligence to make life difficult for others. Each class has certain abilities that must be high and others which don't matter much.
Finally, I ran a homebrew game where every player dumped their charisma ability into single digits, and the party was a sorry lot when they had to cooperate or get along, since everyone was role playing the low charisma as a reason to be unpleasant.
That's one reason I tend not to dump any stat into negative modifier territory, since it comes with drawbacks. I would much rather a character with no weaknesses, even if it means my highest ability is a 16 instead of 18. There's something to be said for balance. And unless you're a mythic character at 20th level, you're not likely to have high scores in all six abilities. You pay your money (or creation points) and takes your choice.
The issue with Charisma is that there are three kinds of obstacles you can present in a game like this-
1) Physical challenges (e.g. can I kick down the door, walk the tightrope, stay awake, or punch the guy)
2) Mental challenges (e.g. can I solve the puzzle, cast the spell, do the research, recall the fact)
3) Social challenges (e.g. can I navigate the party, lie to the guards, impress the noble, make the deal)
We have three stats for physical challenges, two for mental, and one for social so the rules are set up to model the first two kinds with more mechanical depth than anything else. This sort of game is just more likely to involve swordfighting than ballroom dancing (if you wanted to run a courtly intrigue game with very little swordfighting and a lot of ballroom dancing, you might consider a different system with more rules for dancing.) That's just what it is.
So the question is basically how to we get charisma to matter more in situations that Pathfinder players are likely to find themselves in. I do like the idea of using Charisma for saves that basically boil down to "resisting being demoralized" since the force of personality exhibited by a charismatic character likely includes a justified degree of self-confidence. The irrepressible trait and force of personality feat accomplish this but I wonder if it's better to avoid a feat/trait tax here and just add a fourth save that Charisma modifies, or just a category of saves that by default can be resisted with will or personality.
Additionally, it might be worth considering more mechanics like Intimidate where you can unsettle your opponents with your words while fighting them. If we look at the sorts of fiction that inspires these things, heroes and villains are always trying to put their opponent off-balance through banter. So a character who is able to consistently find just the right thing to say might have an advantage in combat against a flustered or frustrated opponent. You really ought to be able to put your opponent off balance with a particularly cutting insult just like you could by intimidating them. I'm not sure if there are feats, mechanics for this but there really should be.
The other thing I would suggest is to design certain encounters with ways to avoid them, and to not punish players for doing things that avoid bloodshed (so give XP for talking your way out of a situation just like you would for fighting your way out of it.) I have found that a lot of the time players will judge immediately whether a situation is one they can try talking their way out of, and if it is they'll try that first. Maybe that's just my experience though. Obviously you won't be able to convince the gelatinous cube to let you pass, but you can't sneak attack the gelatinous cube either. Some approaches won't work in some situations, and that's fine, it's just that there ought to be situations where different approaches can work (so don't fight nothing but oozes).
The one thing I want to say is that there are some folks in this thread who discussed Charisma as "enabling you to roleplay a charming or attractive character" and I want to quibble with that a little bit. Regardless of your stats, you should feel free to act out a character who thinks they are charming or attractive, just like you should be free to act out a character who thinks they are smart or wise. The GM ought not mandate how people play their characters. What the GM has control over, however, is how other people perceive that character. So if your charisma 5 Dwarf acts like he thinks he's Don Juan or Han Solo, that's fine, but odds are pretty good that NPCs aren't going to be charmed (I mean, that's what the game mechanics suggest), odds are pretty good they'll conclude that this guy is kind of an ass. I mean, we've all met people who think they're much more charming, intelligent, etc. than they actually are, right? That's how "a low charisma character trying to play as charming" really ought to come across. You don't need to be hideous or socially awkward, you can just unintentionally come across as insincere, trying too hard, or someone who is clearly putting on an act. This can be a really fun kind of character, in my experience; just don't get mad when your charisma 5 character is not as loved by everybody they meet as they think they should be.
5 CHA Dwarf with 3 Ranks (no class skill bonus) in Diplomacy is the same as 10 CHA Dwarf with 0 Ranks in Diplomacy.
Just because you have low CHA doesn't mean people are gonna perceive you in a negative way.
Just because you have 5 CHA doesn't mean you gotta be rude or something along those lines.
5 CHA gives you -3 to Social skills. That's it.
I don't think stats define your character. If a roll is needed, then you roll, and you already have the penalty.
Skills and attributes are different.
Having a high charisma means that you're naturally confident and socially adept.
Having a bunch of ranks in diplomacy means that you've learned how to persuade people.
It's the difference between "being strong" and "knowing how to throw a punch". You don't need to be especially charismatic to persuade people, just like you don't need to be especially strong to hurt people by punching them. It's just that if you're charismatic and you're well versed in rhetoric you're more effective at persuading people, just like how if you're strong and you know how to punch people you're going to hurt them more. It's the same as the difference between "being smart" and "being trained in a particular science". If you're smart, you're likely to be able to figure out the answer, if you're trained in the appropriate discipline you might just already know the answer. Either way you get the answer, but you come at it in different ways.
A high charisma character is simply going to be, on average, more persuasive than a lower charisma character who has had exactly the same training. Even if the trained but uncharismatic diplomat and the untrained but charismatic person have the same modifiers to diplomacy rolls, the latter is still going to be better at playing every single musical instrument in the universe (assuming the first person doesn't also have extensive training in perform.)
Skills and attributes are different.
Having a high charisma means that you're naturally confident and socially adept.
Having a bunch of ranks in diplomacy means that you've learned how to persuade people.It's the difference between "being strong" and "knowing how to throw a punch". You don't need to be especially charismatic to persuade people, just like you don't need to be especially strong to hurt people by punching them. It's just that if you're charismatic and you're well versed in rhetoric you're more effective at persuading people, just like how if you're strong and you know how to punch people you're going to hurt them more. It's the same as the difference between "being smart" and "being trained in a particular science". If you're smart, you're likely to be able to figure out the answer, if you're trained in the appropriate discipline you might just already know the answer. Either way you get the answer, but you come at it in different ways.
A high charisma character is simply going to be, on average, more persuasive than a lower charisma character who has had exactly the same training.
It's the same ruleswise, that's my point. Just because you have low CHA doesn't mean you can't speak properly or you are extremely shy.
IMO attributes do not define your character, they're just stats for in game use.You don't roleplay your high STR because it's already included on the rules with your CMB and other stuff.