CHA, huh, what is it good for?

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is what I'm saying - the gist of the optimising argument is you can have a low CHA, but add enough ranks in Diplomacy and you're on the after dinner speaking circuit.

You could say the same of any skill in D&D. The trick is, of course, few characters get enough skill points to make up for that kind of lack.

And from a simulationist standpoint, there is nothing wrong with that. I've seen some social misfits absolutely ace business presentations. Personally, I was out-arm wrestled by a guy who was much weaker than I am...because he had superior technique.

(FWIW, my favorite system, HERO, has stats for this, just like D&D.)

 

[Wik]

This is an artefact of earlier editions of D&D.

Remember that, in the original rules, PCs were generated by a "3d6 in order" method. While this made it difficult to get your ideal character, it also provided a weird sort of balance to the attributes - namely, attributes did not need to be balanced. Strength could very well be a better attribute than, say, Intelligence. And charisma could very well be a nigh-useless stat.

Once the idea of assigning rolls (or, later, point buy) came into effect, this rule had to be tweaked. Fourth edition did a pretty good job making Charisma viable, but unfortunately, 3.5/PF can still very much make it a "dump stat". I would argue that in 3.5E/PF actually made charisma MORE of a dump stat than previous editions, due to the fact that social interactions are based on skills and not attributes, and that leadership/followers are less a part of the game than in earlier editions. I'm sure people would disagree with me on that one, though.

As a sidenote, I agree with you about the optimization thing. This is why I refuse to play 3.5 or PF - the idea of character optimization. And it's slowly getting to the point where I'm close to swearing off 4e, for the same damned reason.

 

[Crothian]

This is what I'm saying - the gist of the optimising argument is you can have a low CHA, but add enough ranks in Diplomacy and you're on the after dinner speaking circuit.

Unless you think diplomacy covers everything charisma does and makes charisma completely obsolete this doesn't matter. Diplomacy just does one thing (change the attitudes of other) while according to charisma's description it does a lot more (force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness).

 

[The Shaman]

Charisma doesn't affect character portrayal. It can be taken as a reference for PC personality. But the charisma stat defines how capable the character, not the player, is of communicating effectively in the game world. The higher the stat, the better the ability. Quality play by the player is not limited and he or she can engage with others to the best of their ability, but results for the PC's attempts are limited by stat.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

It's only worthless if the DM lets it be.

This, too.

 

[Argyle King]

CHA actually can be optimized. I honestly believe that the most powerful 3E character I had was a bard. My perform check versus your will save? Yes, please. At epic level I picked up 'Music of The Gods' and was able to brainwash things which were normally immune to my abilities.


I think a lot of people view CHA poorly because a lot of people feel that damage is the best way to overcome an opponent. Personally, I feel otherwise. Why bother fighting the big nasty dragon when I can bend his mind to my will and make him my pet?


None of this even takes into consideration the most abusable feat in 3E: Leadership. A good CHA score allows you to get more (and stronger) cohorts and followers. Even if they can't come to the dungeon with me, I can still have them do things such as craft items for me; till my land and make money, and various other things.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Unless you think diplomacy covers everything charisma does and makes charisma completely obsolete this doesn't matter. Diplomacy just does one thing (change the attitudes of other) while according to charisma's description it does a lot more (force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness).

That is pretty much my attitude. I had to use the Giant in the Playground system of rules for Diplomacy as well, since Diplomacy as written was essentially an uncounterable Charm Monster (except by plugging your ears and screaming "guards!"). Of course this means unlikeable, low Cha but high-rank characters could still hatch deals.

Furthermore, practically nowhere are we told what Charisma does by itself. It's all Diplomacy. There's no mechanical benefit when it comes to, say, the ability to lead. (I am so happy the warlord class exists in 4e. A 3.x fighter with high Charisma was a pretty poor leader.)

Stuff like "force of personality" seems covered by skills. If a DM says they won't listen to that "pathetic pipsqueak" (probably a pretty good description for some non-Charismatic characters), well, it's a good thing you put those ranks in Diplomacy or Intimidate. Or you get the party spokesman to get their attention

The cost of losing a few points on social skills were more than outweighed by the benefits of boosting universally useful stats: Dexterity, Constitution and Wisdom. (Even Strength was useful for most characters, if only because it affected how much stuff you could carry, and even an archer rogue might find +1 damage to melee useful if, say, forced into melee by something they could sneak attack. Intelligence gave you more skill points and languages.)

 

[Stalker0]

(force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness).

However, at the heart of all of these is "changing the attitude of others".

I will agree with the OP that's CHA biggest problem, especially in 3.5, is that its core functionality is almost entirely overlapping with a few skills.

Every other stat has core functionality that has nothing to do with skills, the most obvious example being 3.5e's CON stat.

CON has one skill its tied to, and for the vast majority of classes one they will never use. Yet its one of the most common stats to see for characters because it influences your hp and fort save...which are of critical importance if you are doing any fighting.

Wisdom affects will, strength affects melee attacks and encumberance, dex does a boatload of things, int gives you more skill points.

CHA is the only 3.5e stat that doesn't provide an out of skill advantage, besides the classes that actually use the stat for their class features.

 

[billd91]

Don't follow your inital reply. Yes there should be consequences, then no there shouldn't be consequences?

I'm not sure how you're misinterpreting my post. Of course there are consequences. That doesn't mean a player can't take steps to ameliorate them. But by doing so, you have to divert resources from something else and that's a consequences in and of itself.

More amusingly, when I made a couple of pointed comments about someone who was proudly getting ready to play a fighter with CHA, INT and WIS of 7, I got jumped all over for lecturing. Even got one of those smug wink smileys from someone which is the forum equivalent of the pat on the head and told to run along now.

I haven't followed that other thread so I have no idea if you were lecturing or not. But as long as the DM is using the rules the game's got, I don't see a need to worry about consequences. If the player makes himself useless or hampered in certain circumstances, let him pay the price. The game's got prices built in.

 

[Dilvias]

I use Charisma as how much the universe likes you as well... ie, as a luck stat. If something happens that would usually be resolved by rolling randomly, I have them roll their charisma. For example, if two characters have an equal chance of being attacked, the person with the lowest charisma roll is the one targeted. If one person is going to be rewarded by the king, the highest charisma roll selects who gets the reward.

Charisma is not as much of a dump stat in my game.

 

[steenan]

There are many approaches that don't introduce dump stats and handle social interactions well. There are tens, if not hundreds, RPG systems with no such issues. Problems with charisma are endemic to D&D, from 3e up. Thus, any sensible solutions require getting away from the faulty framework of modern D&D.

The most obvious aspect of the problem is the redundancy between skills and stats. Solution? Get rid of either. Early D&D editions worked well with no skills; Fate works well with no attributes.
If you remove stats you also free yourself from "must have" stats for various classes, stat-modifying spells and equipment and similar things. You lose encumbrance calculations, but that's not really a problem.
If you remove skills, characters can be proficient in various background activities without handwaving them or wasting resources on something that's rarely useful in play.

There is also another source of issues - less obvious, but often more problematic. It's the unclear correspondence between the content of the character sheet and the fictional character it represents. What is abstract and what is concrete? What do the stats really represent? What does a class mean?
If charisma is only a number, with no in-game meaning, then what is wrong with dumping it? If it is personality and looks, then 7 cha character will be an ugly, unsympathetic coward no matter how high his diplomacy. Don't expect others to like him, even if they agree with his argumentation.
Define clearly what the numbers mean and a lot of problems disappear.

Finally, if you want to have redundant character statistics that don't make one another unnecessary, give them other, universally useful, powers. For example, add a special ability to every point of positive attribute modifier. If charisma +1 (12) lets you reroll a failed save against fear or compulsion once per encounter and +2 (14) creates an opportunity for a good trade once per adventure (eg. buying a magical item that wouldn't otherwise be available), dumping it is no longer an obviously good solution.