CHA, huh, what is it good for?

[Sunseeker]

Apologies to Edwin Starr for the thread title.

So, charisma - is it more trouble than it is worth?

....

Is there a workable alternative to handle social interaction that would let us finally wave CHA goodbye?

hah, I feel bad, didn't catch the "War" reference.

To answer you in brief, I would say that no, it is not. The issue I tend to find is that people simply don't understand it, and make it out to be more complicated than it needs to be.

And no, I really don't think there is. Each stat is reflective of a certain aspect of a person. Intelligence has always implied bookishness. Certainly you are studied, but you are not worldly. Wisdom implies worldly, but not necessarily intelligence. You may have learned what defines the price of tea in China...from living in China, but you don't know a lick about economics. Charisma is more of a "stree smarts" kind of wisdom, you've got a quick tongue, but you're not worldly and you're not bookish.

When people make their characters, I feel too often people roll-play and not role-play. It's very easy to see your character as numbers and abilities, and forget how these things play into the character as a person.

Hmmm, not as brief as I hoped.

I think the biggest probelm with Charisma is DM's don't enforce a low charisma and players many times don't role play their charisma properly.

This, with emphasis.

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.

THIS, with added emphasis.

As a general response to attractiveness, I don't really care to use it for that. Why? For the simple reason that there are plenty of people in the world who are physically beautiful beyond words, but once they open their mouth, it's a whole new ballgame. That, and I want my players to feel like their characters are THEIRS to determine. Sure, you can make the busty elf who uses her assets to get her way, but if your cha is low, you'll learn that your attempts come off as overdone and are ineffective, no matter how nice your melons are.

Likewise a 4e paladin can still be gruff and undiplomatic, look like he's been hit by the backside of a horse one too many times, and still have a high CHA score. Why? because IMO, your appearance should be defined by YOU, not your stats. Often the two align, with the ugly barbarian types, but I don't think it's mandatory they should.

In regards to players who speak wel but play characters who don't, the answer is simple: just because you use big words doesn't make you sound any smarter. high CHA? Sure! Low CHA? No. You come off as a babbling idiot who in-game mispronounces and gestures improperly or gives away your true intentions with a smile, a wink, a nudge, ect...

anyway, my 2c

 

[ProfessorCirno]

No, the problem is not with reinforcement, because you've set it up as lose/lose. if you have high charisma, then...nothing happens, congrats on wasting your points, charisma has no positive effect. If you have low charisma, then...well the DM creates special rules designed specifically to screw you over.

Yeah, no.

Look at incentives here. At basic psychology.

If charisma does something if you have it, players will want it. Players want dexterity not because they want to describe their barbarian as having flowing grace but because it does something in game. It's why nobody gives a damn about charisma, it doesn't do anything.

If you punish low charisma, everyone will still drop it, they'll just also hate you for making up special rules that punishes them for playing the game.

 

[gamerprinter]

In general Charisma has nothing to do with how you look, rather your skill at manipulating people and how people perceive you.

Adolf Hitler, and Teddy Roosevelt were neither good looking men, but both are equally charismatic. The number of wealthy men at the turn of the century (1900) that dressed, wore their hair and glasses like Teddy Roosevelt is astonishing. Teddy had loads of charisma.

Nobody would ever claim that Adolf Hitler was particularly handsome, but his charisma was off the charts.

If you thought charisma was how 'pretty you are' this is wrong. There are plenty of 'pretty people' in the world that have zero charisma.

GP

 

[Sunseeker]

....Teddy Roosevelt were neither good looking men...
GP

But...but...that moustache! It's so beautiful!!

 

[Crothian]

In general Charisma has nothing to do with how you look, rather your skill at manipulating people and how people perceive you.

Not according to how the game defines it. Physical attractiveness is one of the components to how D&D defines Charisma.

 

[Crothian]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by enforcing low Charisma, then.

Enforce just means enforce the rules and enforce what a negative charisma means to how people deal with the character. Just like someone with a low strength is seen differently then someone with a high strength.

 

[Sunseeker]

Not according to how the game defines it. Physical attractiveness is one of the components to how D&D defines Charisma.

Be that as it may, considering the laundry list of races, and the fact that none of them physically develop in exactly the same way as others, combined with the various definitions of "beauty" that can exist in the fantasy world, there's really no way that D&D can claim what is or isn't beautiful.

It's a lose/lose situation. If they try to enforce "buff men" and "busty women", they'll get in trouble, if they try to push the opposite, they'll get in trouble.

They HAVE to use your own definitions of attractive, which depending on your standard, could be set up in such a way as to make an IRL beautiful woman/man only an 8.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not according to how the game defines it. Physical attractiveness is one of the components to how D&D defines Charisma.

Yeah, but that's reading the stat definitions as being all inclusive...which, in a sense they are because D&D clumps up a lot of stuff. Which is why 2Ed Player's Option introduced all those substats.

However, reading those stat definitions as a list of discrete aspects as opposed to depenedent ones makes just as much linguistic sense. One need not have all of those aspects to be charismatic.

Is Darth Vader charismatic? Unquestionably yes.

Is he good looking? NO.

Is Lemmy Kilmister charismatic? Unquestionably yes.

Is he good looking? NO.

 

[Crothian]

Be that as it may, considering the laundry list of races, and the fact that none of them physically develop in exactly the same way as others, combined with the various definitions of "beauty" that can exist in the fantasy world, there's really no way that D&D can claim what is or isn't beautiful.

D&D can claim whatever it wants. It makes claims on what is and what is not evil and good. It is a game, it can define things however it likes and people might disagree with that but it doesn't change what the rules say.

 

[True_Blue]

I personally would love for Cha to influence action points in 4e. This is an aspect of the game that every character could potentially care about.

Possibly give people with higher Cha either more action points, better bonuses, other cool things they can do, etc. Some people maybe would want to play a Fighter who has a high Str, but instead of their second stat as Con it would be Cha to benefit from more/better action points.

I'm not saying everyone would care about it to make it high, but it would give a benefit for choosing Cha.