Again another example of CHA as dump stat

[DarkMaster]

I agree. Unfortunately there aren't any good fixes. You can try working within the rules and give a benefit to those that take a high charisma, but that doesn't really give any penalty to every other party member with a low charisma. I guess you could force the party to seperate and do their own individual diplomacy or gather information check, but that doesn't sound like a good solution.

I hate how charisma's best quality is for the diplomacy skill. (Of course it offers greater benefits to a few classes, but they aren't universal benefits) Unfortunately with this skill, it is too subjective. You can either just roll the dice, take the outcome and eliminate a lot of good role playing, or you can ignore the dice and have a lot of good role playing, but undermine the skill. Or you can do a combination of the two, but it is hard to find a happy medium. A player that rolls a 38 on a diplomacy check, but says some pretty offending things to the NPC makes it hard to judge what should be done. Or someone who is very wise and came up with the best compromise ever, but rolled a 5 when presenting it to the NPC to convince them. It is difficult and therefore I hate how that is the best thing that Charisma provides. Also, there is no need to have more than one person in the party excel at this.

How would the party do if only one person had an 18 Str and the other 3 had a Str of 8? They may end up doing well, but the people with an 8 str would notice some penalty associated with it.

The solutions I have heard were to remove charisma completely... that might work, but I like having that part of a character defined by more than just role playing. Or to offer another benefit that Charisma provides. This makes sense to me, but I am not sure I like the idea about action points... and everything that is suggested becomes a house rule.

That is one thing that I hope they change in 4th edition (No, I don't want 4th edition to come out any time soon). Unfortunately I don't have any good ideas for what exactly may be done.

Charisma and social skilled cannot be roleplayed, like combat cannot be roleplayed, I cannot fight like a 10 th level fighter and I cannot convince like someone with 20+ in diplomacy or bluff. The player choose the content of the speech but it has to be delivered in the game through his player, with his player skilled. If your Int 18, Cha 6, bluff -2 wizard comes with something very smart to fool the guard, but his shaking nervously and missing words or getting confused in his lie, the guard will notice that while the story seems right the messenger seems nervous or the way the story is told is really unconvincing.

Take a real life example, an author can write a joke, then the same joke told by a professional stand-up comic and an average accountant will have a very different effect. Content is the same but the way it is delivered changes. Very often in life packaging is noticed much more than content.

Obviously for very good idea you apply a modifier on the roll. If the rogue gathered info on what's in the tower or the idea is very clever I will give important bonus (more than the mere +2 recommanded by the SRD).

 

[Lamoni]

Charisma and social skilled cannot be roleplayed, like combat cannot be roleplayed, I cannot fight like a 10 th level fighter and I cannot convince like someone with 20+ in diplomacy or bluff. The player choose the content of the speech but it has to be delivered in the game through his player, with his player skilled. If your Int 18, Cha 6, bluff -2 wizard comes with something very smart to fool the guard, but his shaking nervously and missing words or getting confused in his lie, the guard will notice that while the story seems right the messenger seems nervous or the way the story is told is really unconvincing.

Take a real life example, an author can write a joke, then the same joke told by a professional stand-up comic and an average accountant will have a very different effect. Content is the same but the way it is delivered changes. Very often in life packaging is noticed much more than content.

Obviously for very good idea you apply a modifier on the roll. If the rogue gathered info on what's in the tower or the idea is very clever I will give important bonus (more than the mere +2 recommanded by the SRD).

I agree. It just becomes more difficult when the player wants to make the NPC helpful towards the party (one that is currently indifferent), and says something like "Hey, you look like a scrawny guy with no friends. We'll promise to be your friend if you agree to help us out." Then rolls a 34. Should you reward the investment in the skill and make the NPC helpful towards the player on the good roll? Or should you penalize the player for such poor role playing. Saying that would never make anyone I know more helpful. Yes, you can add modifiers to the check depending on the role playing, but it isn't that simple. Diplomatic relations and gathering information are fun to role play. Things like jumping and climbing, are things you do as you role play other things like "We should flee to the other side of that chasm! (roll for jump)" or "Maybe if we climb up that wall we can spy on them without being noticed. (roll for climb)"

Most of the time the players role play fairly well and don't treat an NPC like scum if they want to make him/her friendly. I guess you could decide to take out the role playing from the skill checks and just say things like, "I gather information from that guy at the bar (roll...)" and "I try to convince him to join our party for a while (roll...)" It is a role playing game. It is more fun to decide what questions to ask or what things to ask about. It is also fun to speak to NPC's in character to either threaten them, lie to them, ignore them, or try to get information out of them. When you add the role playing, sometimes the role playing would result in the opposite effect as the die roll.

It just makes the DM choose things that they would never have to choose with almost any other skill.
"You didn't act out a very good jump so I think I'll put a penalty on that roll of yours." doesn't sound fair, but
"You didn't give any motivation for the guy to not want to kill you still, I'm placing a -2 penalty on the roll." sounds more acceptable. It can just be a clumsy mechanic to work with.

 

[DarkMaster]

Diplomatic relations and gathering information are fun to role play. Things like jumping and climbing, are things you do as you role play other things like "We should flee to the other side of that chasm! (roll for jump)" or "Maybe if we climb up that wall we can spy on them without being noticed. (roll for climb)"

I think you don't understand what I meant. example
Rogue(approaching the guard). Hi, I am here to meet with the queen she is expecting a baby, I am replacing Rall the doctor he is sick today.
DM: you were quite prepared, with all your previous investigation and poisoning the Dr with that non lethal poison was a good idea give you +4 on the bluff Rogue has bluff +8 and guard has sense motive 2 and he will take 10
DM pretend to roll the dice:
Guard: The guard take a look at you, Ok go down the hall Sir Vremath will show you the way

Lets say that the queen was not pregnant (misinformation) then -8 or -10 penality (guard are not always aware of everything)

Let's say he misses the roll

Guard: Looking at you with a bizare look,"you should go your way my friend before I get mad"
Rogue: Pulling out his rapier quickly,"My friend you should let me in, before I get mad" Intimade roll here
You go from there.

That is what I call rollplay, but instead of relying on the player bluff ability versus my sense motive ability, I use the one from the PC and the NPC. So basically the same but result of the interaction decided by the dice and we go on from there. That prevent real life lawyer to win all the arguments at the table

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I think you don't understand what I meant. example
Rogue(approaching the guard). Hi, I am here to meet with the queen she is expecting a baby, I am replacing Rall the doctor he is sick today.
DM: you were quite prepared, with all your previous investigation and poisoning the Dr with that non lethal poison was a good idea give you +4 on the bluff Rogue has bluff +8 and guard has sense motive 2 and he will take 10
DM pretend to roll the dice:
Guard: The guard take a look at you, Ok go down the hall Sir Vremath will show you the way

Lets say that the queen was not pregnant (misinformation) then -8 or -10 penality (guard are not always aware of everything)

Let's say he misses the roll

Guard: Looking at you with a bizare look,"you should go your way my friend before I get mad"
Rogue: Pulling out his rapier quickly,"My friend you should let me in, before I get mad" Intimade roll here
You go from there.

That is what I call rollplay, but instead of relying on the player bluff ability versus my sense motive ability, I use the one from the PC and the NPC. So basically the same but result of the interaction decided by the dice and we go on from there. That prevent real life lawyer to win all the arguments at the table

I'm have to agree with Dark Master. If the player makes no attempt to craft what they might say, in even the most basic terms, thee will be no bonus, and perhaps a penalty to the roll. If the player says someting completely stupid, the modifier will be so harsh, it will be very difficult to succeed, but possible (maybe the guard thinks the character was being sarcastic).

The other thing that rolling does is take away some bias the DM may have. The DM understands the situation, knows the NPC, knows the PC, knows what ideally HE wants to have happen. The DM hears the players speech and the DM does not think it was done that well. Hmmm, but the DM happens to be a professional speaker and was on the debate team in school. The roll gives a mechanic to decide; sure the DM was not convinced, but would a 1st level guard with a WIS of 9 and a sense motive of +1 would easily be swayed by such a speech?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think you don't understand what I meant. example
Rogue(approaching the guard). Hi, I am here to meet with the queen she is expecting a baby, I am replacing Rall the doctor he is sick today.
DM: you were quite prepared, with all your previous investigation and poisoning the Dr with that non lethal poison was a good idea give you +4 on the bluff Rogue has bluff +8 and guard has sense motive 2 and he will take 10
DM pretend to roll the dice:
Guard: The guard take a look at you, Ok go down the hall Sir Vremath will show you the way

Lets say that the queen was not pregnant (misinformation) then -8 or -10 penality (guard are not always aware of everything)

Only -10? When you have a Bluff/Diplomacy check of over +30 you will have an easier time of it, and with a potion of glibness... I think either the Diplomacy and Bluff skills are broken, or just have bad examples.

 

[DarkMaster]

Only -10? When you have a Bluff/Diplomacy check of over +30 you will have an easier time of it, and with a potion of glibness... I think either the Diplomacy and Bluff skills are broken, or just have bad examples.

I don't know this was just an example the number where picked quickly. but I would not go way above -15 someone with 30 in bluff is amazingly ressourcefull.

 

[Plane Sailing]

You're not much better as a comedian.

You're introducing a new mechanic that hugely favors certain classes, and that's all there is to it. If you have such a problem with someone criticising your house rules without taking it personally, don't post them.

Did you get out of the wrong side of the bed or something? Firelance has an interesting house rule, you slam him, he comes back with a witty general statement which doesn't attack you and yet you slam him again?

It rather looks like you're the one who can't avoid taking anything that disagrees with you personally, and I'm sure that's not the way you want to come across from what I remember of your normal posts.

Be well.

 

[Lamoni]

I'm have to agree with Dark Master. If the player makes no attempt to craft what they might say, in even the most basic terms, thee will be no bonus, and perhaps a penalty to the roll. If the player says someting completely stupid, the modifier will be so harsh, it will be very difficult to succeed, but possible (maybe the guard thinks the character was being sarcastic).

I was also agreeing with Dark Master. That is how we do it in our campaign also. The point I was bringing up is that you DO use role playing along with the rolls. Using a modifier based on what was role played I think works best... and as far as I can tell, that is what is done by DarkMaster and Alekeg. And while I think that works best, I still don't think that it works as well as any other skill. Placing modifiers based on knowing more information (the queen is pregnant) is one thing. But placing modifiers because the player is rude is another. I still place modifiers... but it starts to be more difficult. I know some people who believe that they are very tactful, but always say things that offend other people. They could be playing a highly charismatic player and try to say things in character, but end up saying something offensive. Therefore they get a penalty to the roll and it is based solely on the ability of the player and not the PC. A very charismatic player could always get a +2 modifier to almost everything they said (or at least never get a penalty) while an uncharismatic player could always be getting a -2 or a -4 even though they had the same character and tried to do the same thing. Good role playing should be rewarded and bad role playing should be penalized... but it is too easy to do with the diplomacy skill and I dislike that. Just because you say you are only adding modifiers doesn't mean that you are not adjusting the results based on role playing.

This has gotten slightly off topic. I just feel like if there were more concrete uses of charisma, it would be much more appealing to take. Right now there is no motivation to have anything above an 8 as long as one person in the party has a decent score.

 

[DarkMaster]

This has gotten slightly off topic. I just feel like if there were more concrete uses of charisma, it would be much more appealing to take. Right now there is no motivation to have anything above an 8 as long as one person in the party has a decent score.

Well I usually assume that the character "translate" the idea presented by the player. If you take my example above, the player at the table will say is idea one way, but the PC might have a better or worse way of expressing the same idea. I am not expecting the player of a 18 charisma , 25 diplomacy character to be able to turn sentences like his character would.

As for no motivation to have above 8, as long as one person in the party has a decent score, I have no problem with it usually there are no real motivation for the other character to cast arcane magic or divine magic as long as one person in the party can do it(especially in party of 4 or 5). A fighter might want higher charisma because he has higher aspiration than being a simple mercenary, he wants to lead the compagnie or become a noble. The wizard might want to start a magic university and will need a lot of contact with the nobility in order to do so, Barbarian want to reunite all the tribes to free his people from the empire. With an 8 or even 10 charisma, in my campaign will be hard for the character. The king probably heard about that 18 Charisma fighter 7 who fought the enemy as much as one of his best veteran(fighter Cha 8, level 12). IF you look at the leadership feats as a reference the king will give them command of the same army. The fighter with the highest charisma will climb the command chain much quicker than the other and has better chances of becoming a noble, in my campaing that could be worth much more than 18 STR.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

This, because I don't believe (if we're sticking to real life examples) that the idea of having a "golden boy" who's charismatic and as a result good at seduction, diplomacy, threatening people, bluffing in combat, cheating at cards, dancing, singing, playing an instrument, and using magical devices makes any sense whatsoever. \

That's a foolish argument. Your 'golden boy' is no more absurd than:

- A character with a high dexterity being equally adept at fine motor skills (open locks), skulking in the shadows (hide), or walking a narrow beam (balance).
- A character with a high con being able to resist more physical damage (HP bonus) and concentrate better (Concentrate)
- A wise character being just as proficient at curing the sick (heal) as noticing the hidden rogue (spot) or tell when someone is lying (sense motive).

All of the stats are catch-alls for a wide variety of physical and mental qualities.

We're stuck with this crappy system mainly because in 2E, charisma did almost nothing, so instead of saying "what's the best way of fixing this ability system?" the 3.0 designers said (it seems to me): "We want to keep the same six stats for the sake of continuity - how can we make Charisma as important mechanically as some of the other stats?"

No, we have the 3.x system because previous editions did little to provide objective game mechanics for non-combat interaction. There are numerous examples of games that went stat-happy and differentiated between Wisdom and Willpower, Dexterity and Agility, Intelligence and Education, etc. Doesn't mean they are better or worse systems, just different levels of abstraction, same as HP vs WP/VP, or AC vs DR, or anything else.

Someone with an 8 charisma can't stay in business? It's gonna hit the mousy Indian guy who barely speaks a word of English that I've been buying coffee from every morning for the last few years really hard when I tell him he's destined for failure. :\

I pass two convenience stores on the way home from work. When I want a drink, I stop in the one that is actually a little less convenient because the person that usually works there is friendly and helpful. I've worked in sales; I've seen guys dumber than bricks sell very expensive computer equipment to people based soley on their personality.