Yes; hell yes; depends on the campaign; and that could work but would be a weird version of hero points, basically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd agree with blahpers; definitely worth it for non-charisma classes. Although keep in mind it would do nothing about charisma dumpers since if you're below 12 there's no further loss for going lower.
The big problem is that this would definitely be way too much on charisma-based classes like Paladin or Sorcerer. That's the big trouble that pretty much all charisma-fixes have; the charisma-based classes are all balanced around the fact that charisma is somewhat of a cruddy ability score, so fixing that problem throws off the class balance.
Lol, Paladin with 4/day save re-rolls.
To be fair, between immunities and their bonuses Paladins never fail saves anyway, so it likely wouldn't make that much difference there. Sorcerers/Oracles/etc would get a huge buff.
You could make it more slowly scaling:
10 CHA = 1/day
14 CHA = 2/day
18 CHA = 3/day
etc.
This would punish dumping without going overboard. I can still see 9th level spell-casters abusing this (well ... abusing it without trying). If you wanted to encourage some CHA without buffing pure CHA characters so much you could do a more exponential scale:
10 CHA = 1/day
12 CHA = 2/day (+1 modifier)
16 CHA = 3/day (+3 modifier)
22 CHA = 4/day (+6 modifier)
30 CHA = 5/day (+10 modifier)
(I'm using "triangular" numbers here)
OR
10 CHA = 1/day
12 CHA = 2/day (+1 modifier)
18 CHA = 3/day (+4 modifier)
28 CHA = 4/day (+9 modifier)
(I'm using square numbers here)
Or whatever scale you want to use.
You could also just put a cap on it, say 1/day for 10 CHA, 2/day for 14 CHA and you don't get any more bonus after that.
Since we're in house-rule territory you can really set whatever limits you like.
You could add in some sort of restriction like, 'Charisma based classes (Paladin, Sorcerer, etc) gain 1 reroll for ever +3 Charisma modifier'.
Yeah, it would mean that they aren't getting as many as others would if they actually put points into Cha. Unless you have to, or you're trying to be the 'Face', Cha is kinda useless for you, so I think in the end it would be fairly even; Non-Cha characters may gain 1 or 2 rerolls a day while the Cha with their focus on that stat could end up more than that, but that's what they get for being a SAD class.
Not a bad idea. I like it and may adopt something similar for my own use. I did something similar with Intelligence (got tired of seeing martial types treat it as "unimportant / dump stat"). So I allowed background traits instead of bonus languages in the campaign. As my campaign only used common as a language this was a more reasonable trade off that all character types & classes actually got some use out of.
Charisma I used as the stat to determine the DC of spells, arguing that it represented the force of will of the caster, where as their primary caster stat determined their bonus spells and other class features.
Aside from using Cha for spell DC I also focused on the RP aspect of my campaign. Any time some low Cha character tried to be all cool, or charming, or whatever I'd let them know that their attempts were not met with the reaction they were expecting. "Hey baby, I've just saved the whole town and thought we might grab a drink and celebrate" would come across more like, "You...girl. I'm a hero, now you owe me some lovin!" My players quickly realized that low cha characters (especially in town) generally meant their character really needed to keep their mouth shut unless they were actually trying to intimidate someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rather like the idea. It would easily make charisma better than wisdom for shoring up a bad will save.
Sorcerers/Oracles/etc would get a huge buff.
The question is, would that be problematic? Sorc and Oracle are weaker than prepared casters, anyway. A Sorc with save rerolls is still less campaign breaking than a Wizard. It would cement the status of Psychic as the worst full caster, though.
The classes that worry me most are Summoner, and Paladin, with Skald to a lesser amount, because those are already strong compared to their peers.
Regarding progression, I was thinking of something like this:
10-11: 1 reroll/day
12-13: 2 rerolls/day
14-15: 3 rerolls/day
16+: 4 rerolls/day
You could add in some sort of restriction like, 'Charisma based classes (Paladin, Sorcerer, etc) gain 1 reroll for ever +3 Charisma modifier'.
The problem with the idea is, what's the definition of a charisma based class? Swashbuckler is based on charisma as a secondary stat, just like Paladin, but they don't usually start at 16+ charisma.
Where would you draw the line? The DC of Vigilante Talents, and the Frightening/Stunning Appearance class features, are charisma based, does that make the class so?Sorcerer, Oracle, Seducer Witch, and maybe some characters with Desna's Shooting Star are the only ones with charisma as the primary stat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dump charisma on all characters when possible. And I'm proud of it.
Since "charisma dumping" is a pretty exhausted subject, I've decided to state my opinion in verse this time to spice it up a bit.
If you ask how low, I'd say "count to seven".
Because the truth is I've never had it above eleven.
My social interactions are not left to fate,
as I make sure to take the right trait.
If dumping makes you queasy,
just say "no lower than 10", easy.
The problem exists only in your head,
there's nothing to fix, end of thread.
You could add in some sort of restriction like, 'Charisma based classes (Paladin, Sorcerer, etc) gain 1 reroll for ever +3 Charisma modifier'.The problem with the idea is, what's the definition of a charisma based class? Swashbuckler is based on charisma as a secondary stat, just like Paladin, but they don't usually start at 16+ charisma.
Where would you draw the line? The DC of Vigilante Talents, and the Frightening/Stunning Appearance class features, are charisma based, does that make the class so?Sorcerer, Oracle, Seducer Witch, and maybe some characters with Desna's Shooting Star are the only ones with charisma as the primary stat.
I should have been more clear. I was meaning Cha based caster classes. It's just a rough idea obviously. It would probably be better to just make a list than trying to making it a broad filter.
Try this instead, Cha based classes use their Int for the bonus rerolls, all others use Cha for the rerolls. Still gives incentive to avoid dump stats.
Hell in my campaigns a dump stat, or a low save is simply a plot hook!
Why would Charisma have anything to do with a reroll?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would Charisma have anything to do with a reroll?
Charisma is your force of personality. In Sorcerers/Paladins/etc. This also represents a connection to the divine, or the weave of the universe, or whatever else connects all living things. This could absolutely give you some power to determine your own fate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would Charisma have anything to do with a reroll?Charisma is your force of personality. In Sorcerers/Paladins/etc. This also represents a connection to the divine, or the weave of the universe, or whatever else connects all living things. This could absolutely give you some power to determine your own fate.
While not a bad answer I would answer this question more directly: To discourage "dump stats" and give an incentive for having a well rounded character. This is particularly important in campaigns where Role Play (RP) is more heavily emphasized. If you are playing in a campaign where the point really just comes down to kill bad guy, take his stuff, level up, next dungeon...then this rule is probably a waste of time for your group.
Yeah honestly I don't really have a problem with dump stats.
A guy who spends all his time in caves murdering intelligent fungi probably doesn't have the best personal skills (or personal hygene), so having a low CHA can be in character. If my GM says "No Dump Stats" then I'll go along with it, but I'm basically happy to go with whatever restrictions we have and see what I can make out of it.
I'm interesting to see how my CHA 8 group handles an encounter coming up in plunder and peril:
While not a bad answer I would answer this question more directly: To discourage "dump stats" and give an incentive for having a well rounded character. This is particularly important in campaigns where Role Play (RP) is more heavily emphasized. If you are playing in a campaign where the point really just comes down to kill bad guy, take his stuff, level up, next dungeon...then this rule is probably a waste of time for your group.
I'm a strong believer of the idea that every character should have at least one social skill they're good at.
But charisma has absolutely nothing to do with roleplaying. It's a purely mechanical aspect of your character, and if you let mechanics decide roleplay then you could just skip every social interaction and just let your players roll skills.If you meant to write "This is particularly important in campaigns where social encounters are more heavily emphasized." then even that may not be the case.
A wizard with 7 Charisma and a +9 modifier in Diplomacy should be more proficient in social situations than the 12 Charisma brawler with +1 in Diplomacy. The only thing that matters is how much the character has invested in the skill totals.
I sometimes play games where every race is some kind of Spartan-esque society that throws babies off cliffs if they have even one point of dump stating...A lot of potential teammates were turned off.
A wizard with 7 Charisma and a +9 modifier in Diplomacy should be more proficient in social situations than the 12 Charisma brawler with +1 in Diplomacy. The only thing that matters is how much the character has invested in the skill totals.
This makes sense from a RL standpoint. Imagine you have two friends that are trying to convince you to do something. Friend number 1 has a nasally voice that's kind of grating, but they make a really excellent argument for it. While friend number 2 is pleasant to be around but their argument was just "uh, cause you should". You're more likely to take the advice from friend number 1 then you are friend number 2 because they made the more convincing argument.
IMO I find it a little boring to play a character that has all good stats. I have intentionally tanked a stat that didn't affect the performance of the character just to make the character more interesting. It gives me a flaw I can lean into when I roleplay the character. It makes them more memorable and more fun to play. If even my worse stat is "above average" Its disingenuous to treat them as being otherwise.
Since first impressions and general impressions are more about charisma than the more focused diplomacy situations, in a well run game, that 7 charisma wizard is going to have to overcome his general impressions, every stupid time. He starts at a negative and has to take more steps to make people helpful to him, but since he is a wizard people aren't going to nerd-shame as much as your nasally friend must endure. Real world, do you actually believe reasonable arguments work well on mostly unreasonable people?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since first impressions and general impressions are more about charisma than the more focused diplomacy situations, in a well run game, that 7 charisma wizard is going to have to overcome his general impressions, every stupid time. He starts at a negative and has to take more steps to make people helpful to him, but since he is a wizard people aren't going to nerd-shame as much as your nasally friend must endure. Real world, do you actually believe reasonable arguments work well on mostly unreasonable people?
when it comes to friends, I think so. When it comes to strangers, less so. Diplomacy is much more about how you present yourself and how you say things then what exactly you're saying. Hence why it's based on cha and not int. Just because an argument is "reasonable" it doesn't mean it's logical. When I say he's made reasonable arguments I mean, he's made arguments that are easy to accept. Not that that they are bound in ironclad logic.
Since first impressions and general impressions are more about charisma than the more focused diplomacy situations, in a well run game, that 7 charisma wizard is going to have to overcome his general impressions, every stupid time.
I've only seen this sentiment applied as a penalty, never as a boon.
In those "well run games", have enemies ever refused to attack the sorcerer because they were "immediately liked" by most of the bandits?
Has the cleric ever been told the secret plan of the BBEG because they're "Nearly prescient"?
...or has the fighter been told she's too dumb to count gold pieces, and the rogue been told they're not smart enough to come up with that plan?
Real world, do you actually believe reasonable arguments work well on mostly unreasonable people?
Not if the other canditate has a high bluff skill...