|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate to say it, but with Critical Hits you want your primary stat high, and with Critical Fails you want your defense stats reasonable... That leaves Charisma, which for most characters doesn't help with offense or defense, as the clear winner of dump stat status for non-charisma builds.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma is in much the same state it was in PF1 I think - if it isn't good, it's terrible, but if you want to make it good it can be terrific. Every martial should seriously consider how much value they can get out of Demoralize but if you don't feel it's worth it to invest in that action then there's no reason to put points in it.
I'm sure that, much like PF1, we'll get more reasons to use charisma but they will also be in the vein of "reward for investment" rather than "punish for not investing".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Arachnofiend said. CHA just doesn't have the passive impact other stats have regardless of specific investments.
Which I think points out the value of options that use CHA, but which use it more as moderate threshold or pre-req. Eldritch Heritage was kind of one of these in 1E, at least lowest levels having moderate CHA requirement (13). Maybe with new stat system, those could start at 12 CHA, so just one bump at start (or starting with 10 and bumping it to 12 later) have solid pay off. (I considered how Eldritch Heritage could be General Feat, bypassing Sorceror MC, but allowing direct access to Bloodline Focus Powers, but not general Sorceror Casting or Feats).
There have been threads analyzing this, and proposing houseruled changes (Will Saves, languages, Magic Item overcharge checks...), but vanilla core system treatment of CHA vs other stats is incontrovertibly unequal, even one of main designers said this... Resonance was it's great hope, but that got dumped, so no luck for CHA. But since CHA can be great for those who seriously invest in it, and doesn't hurt those who don't, it's not exactly actively detrimental to the game, although there are subtle ways it does affect it.
I think one way to bring every character's CHA into play is have PCs with language diversity, so THE ONE FACE is not always one doing the talking and Diplomacy. Players have normal incentive to spread their languages around to cover all bases anyways, so if that is relevant in game, maybe some more characters might think of using 1 or their 4 stat boosts towards CHA.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that I could see a martial might be interested in a decent charisma is to get the feat that allows to invest in 12 magic items instead of the max of 10 magic items.
But for now, not sure, if it is really necessary to have 12 magic items.
Even then you could dump it at level 1 and put ability score ups in it later on to get to that feat, since it probably won't be needed for quite awhile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I always have NPCs interact with the party as individuals. Someone having massive diplomacy stats alone isn't always the right option.
But yeah it is rather nebulous.
I would have loved charisma to be attached to Will saves as force of personality suits the word "will" better imo and wisdom has already gotten a big boost by dint of being the primary initiative score now. But this isn't the world we live in.
Another fun option could have been 5 base for magic item investment and then +1 for every charisma modifier.
Charisma matters for:
1. Bard/Sorcerer (Caster Stat/DC Stat).
2. Cleric (Heal/Harm Font pool is CHA MOD + 1).
3. Face Characters.
4. Intimidate Builds.
5. People who want innate cantrips.
6. One CHA 16 pre-req feat for 2 more invested items....
Multiclass bard/sorcerer/champion
Innate spellsChampion (Devotion Spell Stat/DC Stat)
I'm wondering how often the 8 Cha Dwarf with Assurance in Diplomacy and legendary diplomacy is going to get themselves in hot water.
I'm wondering how often the 8 Cha Dwarf with Assurance in Diplomacy and legendary diplomacy is going to get themselves in hot water.
A bath tub? ;)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I always have NPCs interact with the party as individuals. Someone having massive diplomacy stats alone isn't always the right option.
As someone who plays charisma characters a frankly unreasonable amount of the time, this behavior annoys the hell out of me. It feels like being deliberately robbed of my investment in diplomacy because the GM wants to punish the dwarf. You wouldn't force someone who didn't invest in Thievery to pick half of the locks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I always have NPCs interact with the party as individuals. Someone having massive diplomacy stats alone isn't always the right option.As someone who plays charisma characters a frankly unreasonable amount of the time, this behavior annoys the hell out of me. It feels like being deliberately robbed of my investment in diplomacy because the GM wants to punish the dwarf. You wouldn't force someone who didn't invest in Thievery to pick half of the locks.
My groups know what they are getting in for and all accept that if they don't want to be dragged into a situation then they have to roleplay appropriately.
You seem to have an issue with GM counter play, I don't do it to counter diplomacy characters I do it because it makes more sense that someone won't JUST talk to the diplomacy monkey ignoring the people they just saw directly taking part in events.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've always questioned "Dump stats". I'm the guy that at least likes to keep everything at 10-12 so I don't get a negative. I never saw going lower as a 'good thing' unless it was for spell casters and even then, there's ways to get more spell slots/recharge them. Also the danger of taking Stat damage early but that's gone last I saw(There's no stat damage just debuffs. Can you die if your stat hits 0 by debuff?)
As someone who plays charisma characters a frankly unreasonable amount of the time, this behavior annoys the hell out of me. It feels like being deliberately robbed of my investment in diplomacy because the GM wants to punish the dwarf. You wouldn't force someone who didn't invest in Thievery to pick half of the locks.
No but the CHA character everywhere or at least IN character might not have the mannerisms to be fully trusted.
A Bard might be able to win over the Thieves guild but a Rogue or someone that is more criminal/underground might have a better idea or way of getting them to talk cause they are "One of us".
It's why I'm slowly testing out Etiquette from Shadowrun in my games. Well the Shadowrun Returns series. Basically different mannerisms or talking/culture points that help with discussing.
Yeah your Dwarf might not have CHA to talk to the big merchant lord but he'd have say Etiquette Miner or Streets and be able to talk with the lower classes just fine, as an example.
While having a strong CHA build is fine, just make sure to let others talk and not just be for combat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No but the CHA character everywhere or at least IN character might not have the mannerisms to be fully trusted.
A Bard might be able to win over the Thieves guild but a Rogue or someone that is more criminal/underground might have a better idea or way of getting them to talk cause they are "One of us".
It's why I'm slowly testing out Etiquette from Shadowrun in my games. Well the Shadowrun Returns series. Basically different mannerisms or talking/culture points that help with discussing.
Yeah your Dwarf might not have CHA to talk to the big merchant lord but he'd have say Etiquette Miner or Streets and be able to talk with the lower classes just fine, as an example.
While having a strong CHA build is fine, just make sure to let others talk and not just be for combat.
I'm far more in favor of a system like this. What Grognard is doing is literally just setting someone up for failure if they decide they don't want this character to be charismatic - again, it's the same thing as forcing the Barbarian to attempt to disable some of the traps. I don't know the details of Shadowrun's system but the theory of making it easier for characters who fit into the situation to negotiate is sound.
There isn't really an issue with not letting others talk, mostly because we save Diplomacy rolls specifically for when you're doing the things Diplomacy rolls are for. If you're trying to negotiate a deal or make a quick good impression on a stranger then yeah, you have your Ambassador character do that. Just having a conversation with the quest NPC you already have a strong relationship with because you've done them favors doesn't require a roll, that's just roleplaying.
I'm far more in favor of a system like this. What Grognard is doing is literally just setting someone up for failure if they decide they don't want this character to be charismatic - again, it's the same thing as forcing the Barbarian to attempt to disable some of the traps. I don't know the details of Shadowrun's system but the theory of making it easier for characters who fit into the situation to negotiate is sound.
Well actually it's a change for the computer games and not in the tabletop system it seems. Weird. And the Etiquette's in game unlock more dialogue options or different skill checks.
But I like the idea that each person/character has their own insights or manners when it comes to speaking to certain groups. Someone skilled at making deals with the nobility might find it hard to deal with the street gangs. An Academic styled character can easily talk to others about science, magic, occult topics but throw them in room full of Socialites or Military minded and they might flummox a bit.
I'm not a fan of the new background system but I think that might be the key way to easily slide such an idea into PF2. Sure someone that can craft masterwork/legendary weapons after adventuring for awhile can convince a Smith, but someone with the Background: Blacksmith has been around long enough to know more of the dangers, pick up on the more subtle tells and can tell the odd metalworking joke that other smiths actually get.
It's not a perfect system probably, and I haven't really tested it in a numbers way but it's something I'm keeping in mind a little bit in my own games.
I'm pretty sure (in context of latest 2E adventure) Paizo's talked about doing pretty much the same thing, using Performance to gain the confidence of somebody who likes music, that sort of thing (including Lores). IMHO, having NPCs talk to specific PCs when they have reason to doesn't mean a "Face" PC can't try to push forward to start interactions and succeed most of the time (or even insert themselves into other PC's interactions), but assuming that will always and only be the case, and NPCs will never bypass the face for coherent reasons is just absurd and immersion breaking IMHO. When a monster slams on a cloth caster, martials players dont' say "OMG that was my niche, I'm the one in heavy armor, they should have attacked me because I specialized for it". I'm not trying to undercut anybody's perspective, I just see a balanced approach like that as enhancing my game and reasonable to consider in system/adventure assumptions.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Age of Ashes has rules for making friends. You can do it with either a Skill appropriate to the specific person, or Diplomacy.
I feel like that's a great middle ground. It allows people to do this sort of thing with other skills when appropriate, but still makes the guy invested in Diplomacy the one who gets to be friends with everyone.
But I like the idea that each person/character has their own insights or manners when it comes to speaking to certain groups. Someone skilled at making deals with the nobility might find it hard to deal with the street gangs. An Academic styled character can easily talk to others about science, magic, occult topics but throw them in room full of Socialites or Military minded and they might flummox a bit.
I'm not a fan of the new background system but I think that might be the key way to easily slide such an idea into PF2.
Yes. I would think this would be a great use of Lore skills. Using backgrounds for this could also work, but it doesn't have a roll modifier built into it. So it would be good for roleplaying the encounter (explaining why this character would be good at talking to that NPC), but not necessarily for rolling checks to persuade or negotiate.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a general rule that:
A) You may use Lore instead of Diplomacy to Make an Impression on an NPC interested in or related to that skill
B) You may count yourself as Trained in Diplomacy for the purposes of interacting with characters that share your background (with some exceptions - an Acolyte of Urgathoa should receive no bonuses for trying to talk to an Acolyte of Pharasma).
Would be a fair and reasonable route to go. Perhaps other appropriate skills could be involved in A as well, if you're nerding out with a fellow Wizard I could see using Arcane to make a good impression on him.
Pathfinder had rules for influencing people based on other skills in Ultimate Intrigue. It can come up a lot in the War for the Crown AP.
I'm wondering how often the 8 Cha Dwarf with Assurance in Diplomacy and legendary diplomacy is going to get themselves in hot water.A bath tub? ;)
If it's a dwarf and a bathtub then my guess is very rarely.
If it's a dwarf and a bathtub then my guess is very rarely.I'm wondering how often the 8 Cha Dwarf with Assurance in Diplomacy and legendary diplomacy is going to get themselves in hot water.A bath tub? ;)
Dwarves are hardy- they prefer ice cold baths.
|
|
Several races can get innate cantrips, and Charisma is your default casting stat. That means it determines save DCs, to hit and damage for them. Gnomes happen to get a charisma bonus and have a lot of innate spellcasting options. Dwarves are rather low-magic and have low charisma.
I see a pattern. Charisma isn't a dump stat for everyone, because you close some doors you might like open. But with the way heavy armor works, you can also consider not boosting Dex anymore. Different builds, different priorities.
There's also feinting and demoralizing. Even a wizard might want a boost or two in charisma to help a spell land.
With a dwarf though? Yeah, you don't want charisma as a secondary stat.
As a GM I always have NPCs interact with the party as individuals. Someone having massive diplomacy stats alone isn't always the right option.As someone who plays charisma characters a frankly unreasonable amount of the time, this behavior annoys the hell out of me. It feels like being deliberately robbed of my investment in diplomacy because the GM wants to punish the dwarf. You wouldn't force someone who didn't invest in Thievery to pick half of the locks.
If the party's together, I usually let whoever wants to do the talking (usually left to the face, but others do jump in at times, for better or ill). Sometimes, an NPC might want to speak to a specific person, perhaps for personal/cultural reasons, or just to see if everyone in the party is on the same page (e.g. when they're playing Dark Heresy and reporting in to the Inquisitor or Interrogator).
You split the party though, and you might find yourself in a bad spot for bargaining. Nothing like having the two with the worst social skills in the party trying to corrupt an upstanding official.