|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, they aren't atm but I would be surprised if there's never an attack of some sort that directly impacts your stats :PThose aren't in 2eI mean, you start seeing a monster that throws out CHA Damage or Drain style effects and that CHA dumping is going to hurt :PI don't want to start the Resonance debate again, but basically "what Arachnofiend said, but more politely".
Currently Charisma is the only stat that lacks a penalty for dumping it other than skill bonuses. That said, I do think the original implementation of Resonance made Charisma too important, where it hurt more than it should to dump it. I feel like dumping Charisma should be a drawback in the same way that dumping Dex or dumping Con is a drawback - you notice the drawback, it changes the way you play, but it doesn't cripple your character.
There are things that inflict status penalties to checks based off stats. What we don't have is something that punishes you if that stat hits 0, which is the only thing that made charisma drain scary to people who dump charisma. Otherwise you're just making them worse on skills they weren't going to use anyway.
It seems unlikely that we will see these abilities return, given how thoroughly they were replaced.
Yeah, from what's been said, abilities that "make you rebuild your character" are completely off the table.
One also can't "dump" charisma in PF2. Lowest you can get is starting at 10 (8 for dwarves) and leaving it there.
Not 100% true. Someone COULD use the optional roll method [assuming it stayed the same as the playtest] and start off with a 1 in cha. IMO, that's not dumping per se, but is a departure from the normal minimums.
I guess rather than saying INT + CHA, I would at first be more inclined to say use the higher of the two bonuses.
Or another alternative would be that you could make it where you have to pay for both Written and Spoken languages separately. With INT you have to have already bough the written version of the language before you can buy it's spoken or signed versions. With CHA you have to pay for an interactive version (spoken or signed) version before you can buy it as written. Since before you had to have a +2 INT to get a language in the playtest, having to pay 2 bonus slots to get both seems like it could work, especially since investment in CHA could boost it too.
Thanks, I think that works for me. I don't like the "highest of" approach because half the point to me was making negative CHA mod consequential to characters already set on high INT build. The lower over-all number of (full) languages feels reasonable, "full INT mod to # of (full) languages" is a bit much, even if "+1 for 14+" was a bit low.
And really, I like the concept of high INT "scholar" characters who only knows written version of distant or ancient languages (which is much less generally useful, so allowing 2x the number is reasonable). Likewise, the 'social linguist' who may not know written version. Anybody with more than +2 net from anywhere can learn both, but each stat is "pushed" towards different angle. That also helps further differentiate characters, incentiving to accept limitations based on focus, or influence choice of stat-boost. I suppose having a negative mod in one would increase the cost of buying proficiency only in it's "mode", e.g. a a 20 INT 8 CHA "scholar" gets 5 "points" from INT, but CHA penalty increases cost of learning one spoken version... Allowing 2 written+spoken languages with nothing left, same as 18 INT 10 CHA character, although 20 INT character could get 5 written-only languages VS 18 INT character's 4 written-only languages.
I think discrete written/spoken proficiency might also enable game relevance for languages which share a script, like Dwarven/Giant, which hasn't had mechanical relevance AFAIK. Now, I don't think they should be able to fluently understand written Giant (more than specific names) with no proficiency in it. But it seems reasonable if they share a script, and you already know written version of one, you should always (i.e. independent of stat granting bonus) be able to spend point to directly learn spoken version and automatically know how to read/write it. So if they do put 1 point in it they could get a 2:1, so to speak. (which really just offsets Dwarves' CHA penalty, if they choose to put 1 point in thematically related language of Giants)
EDIT: This also plays well if you consider removing or lessening things like "bonus Common for all", making it easier to pick up just 1 mode of it. Or things like Kelesh Empire maybe with common script for multiple languages become less imposing with that shared script rule and bonus stacking from 2 stats. Hell, do that for Mwangi Polyglot, and make them just share script thus 2x as easy to be fully fluent in (and able to understand some basic names & places, sufficient for basic trading?), and we can further get away from dubious original approach.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whatever boost they give to CHA, it should NOT be tied to skills like Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff. As has been said, getting higher INT can usually improve them more than CHA on some circumstances. It should be something where the CHA ability score truly matters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One effect of CHA that I might try as a house rule would be for minions. After taking your action to command your minions 2 actions, on the following CHA-mod rounds it will use one action per round to continue following your command.
This is a combat boost for CHA and I think it fits thematically. It might be a bit strong though.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a problem for a player to get to play two characters. Minionmancy got out of control real fast in PF1 if the player wasn't specifically trying to regulate themselves, it should come as no surprise that Paizo put some strict limits on it in the new edition.
|
Wait, people seriously hate leadership?
Leadership has always been good fun in every campaign I've seen it so far
Like even as written, it isn't really good idea to bring your followers into combat, only the cohort. And cohort is only problem if GM let's pcs create them and even in that case, if pcs optimize, cohort doesn't really make things worse if super optimal party that already nukes everything.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's a problem for a player to get to play two characters. Minionmancy got out of control real fast in PF1 if the player wasn't specifically trying to regulate themselves, it should come as no surprise that Paizo put some strict limits on it in the new edition.
I remember actually avoiding cheap tactics when playing my Conjuration Wizard at 12th level. I was only using my strongest summon spell to bring an extra monster, but I definitely could be summoning packs of lions, aurochs and stuff like that, but since turns were taking forever. I even thought of buying a cauldron of overwhelming allies, but thought it would be too inconvenient.
But I still think that the way its restricted is terrible. Summoned monsters aren't like Mechanic's Drones, that have a very limited AI that gets better over levels.
So... Why not take the bard approach? The normal command lasts only one round, but if you manage to pass a charisma-based check (handle animal) the duration is extended for two rounds, three if it's a critical success. The mechanic is already in the game, it helps charisma and seems like it's not that gamebreaking to have one to two rounds of freedom in the action economy, right? Specially since spells are way more limited now and the summons aren't such a huge threats to their enemies.
Yes, lots of people hated Leadership. I hate it because it's something you should be able to do with RP rather than as a feat. It straddled an awkward line between player and GM power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the guidance would have been better as a sidebar in some GM resource, instead it locks people out of essentially hiring helpers without a feat which is bizarre to me.
Not saying it's wrong to like it, but it's certainly not a surprise to me that there are plenty of people who hated it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark me down as anti-Leadership as well. Too many actors in a battle bog things down tremendously. In a game I am currently playing there are four PCs with two animal companions plus seven (!) NPCs tagging along. It takes well over an hour to do one round of combat with this group. In our most recent game, we started the session already in combat around 6 PM and the combat ended five rounds later around midnight. Since I was low in the initiative order I only played four rounds. In six hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mark me down as anti-Leadership as well. Too many actors in a battle bog things down tremendously. In a game I am currently playing there are four PCs with two animal companions plus seven (!) NPCs tagging along. It takes well over an hour to do one round of combat with this group. In our most recent game, we started the session already in combat around 6 PM and the combat ended five rounds later around midnight. Since I was low in the initiative order I only played four rounds. In six hours.
That's not acceptable by any means. Minions, npcs, summons, animal companions and the like should work in a simplified way, have as few traits as possible, and in general use completely dumbed down rules compared to actual pcs.
That and/or we can't bring more than 1-2 of them around.
Also: swarms. If there are enough allies, on any side, that the gm is starting to regret not having called in with an excuse not to come, they should all be condensed in a single fighting entity like a swarm.
Also, advice in case someone needs it: I'm running WotR with a single player, and the npcs are his party, but I control what they say and do, so he doesn't have to worry about them and can focus on playing his paladin. Now, the npcs use monster rules, are very simplified, and they don't roll any die - I just apply an average taking into account what they would've rolled otherwise. I describe what happens quickly, I don't play by myself while my player waits for his single turn, and they still contribute against the opponents.
Not that it's ideal if you want perfect book-keeping, but it does work in a pinch, and most importantly, my player loves it ^___^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like companions should be handled by the GM and the story. Not people you travel constantly. It's the perfect way of having temporary allies, convenience alliances and all that nuanced stuff you can't do with the standard (good aligned PCs) party since they will be pretty tight.
This thing of carrying an extra NPC (often with class levels) because of a mechanical feat and that benefits you as an item is simply stupid. Gathering allies and making friends should be roleplay-oriented. It's even worse when the cohorts are exploited to generate more wealth.
We had a "cohort" of sorts in the party, it was entirely random and it was initiated by the GM (he didn't expect to turn into a permanent cohort), but after a few sessions in, the NPC was being treated as an extra PC, which only got us harder encounters. I think it was reasonable, after all it was a fully-fledged Oracle at APL-1 working with us.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like Leadership is a feat that only existed because it was legacy.
Like, if you compare it to Animal Ally, which is already a strong feat, Leadership is strictly better.