Can charisma be something more than just dump stat?

[rogueattorney]

Quick little way to make charisma a bit more important.
Whenever you would normally roll randomly to attack PCs, don't roll. Just attack the one with the lowest score.

Not a complete fix. But helps a little bit.

I like that.

"Why is everyone always attacking me?"
"'Cus your character is an unlikeable louse."

 

[MortonStromgal]

Ubiquity basically has the Weapon Finesse feat for any stat. So you can trade STR for CHA on a to hit roll. Your commanding presence makes the enemy cower leaving an opening for you to hit or something like that was the reasoning (don't have my book on me). The thing that I loved was I could make someone like Maximus Decimus Meridius without having to have every stat high. It didn't necessarily make logical sense but it was a ton of fun.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I've never found charisma to be a universal "dump" stat in game. Sure, for a player that does not need charisma, it can be a dump stat. However, why does the burly and surly dwarf fighter or the loner ranger need to have a decent charisma? Why wouldn't CHA be a dump stat for that type of PC?

But, if you're a class that needs CHA (bard, cleric, sorcerer, etc) and/or wants to interact with NPCs, then it is not a dump stat.

I think it was more of a problem in earlier editions, as it was not as important for things like turning undead and there were no CHA based sorcerers in 1E/2E that I can recall. However, even then, we had players that took Diplomacy as a NWP and did not use CHA as a dump stat.

 

[ExploderWizard]

There is an easy fix.

Get rid of building and back to generating stats. Nothing to assign= nothing to dump. Some will have high scores, and others will have average or low.

Done.

Brought to you by the D&D easy button.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

The basic problem with charisma is that if all it does is enhance social interaction, only one person in the party needs it. Everyone else can pull dark cloaks over their heads, stand back and let the party negotiator handle in of the tricky stuff while they play the part of the ugly nasty looking stupid looking henchmen (and in some cases, looks need not be decieving).

This is very true; it is almost like being the "trap" guy. If one person in the party is good at it then no one else needs to be. I think coming up with rules that involve more of the party in these endeavours would be fruitful. I remember your wonderful essay on traps from a different thread and could not help but make the parallel here.

The secondary problem with charisma is that it depends on the GM to make charisma relevant. Too many DMs take the tact that what you are supposed to do is fight. If you don't fight, you aren't rewarded with XP. If you try diplomacy when you aren't supposed to, it inevitably fails to yield a meaningful result.

In addition to this, I think players try to skirt around having a low or average charisma by using their own personality at the table to accomplish things beyond the average means of their character.

I basically think D20/D&D handles charisma all right. The basic problem is hard to overcome. The secondary problem can't be overcome by rule changes alone. The trick I think is not to focus on making it never a dump stat, but making it a stat that can be rewarding for players of every class so that it doesn't have to be a dump stat. The core of my approach to that is destiny/action points and a reasonably useful combat feat tree that depends on charisma. The secondary approach to that is to make the list of skills that end up as class skills for your character somewhat more flexible, so that it requires relatively little sacrifice to end up with social skills on your class list. It's not necessary, and probably not even desirable, to have a charisma based fighter be as effective as a strength based combat brute, all that is necessary is to provide ways for a fighter to get some advantage in combat out of high charisma to go along with the large out combat advantages he gains.

I think certain swashbuckling styles would be aided by charisma as much as dexterity. If you had advantangeous combat feats that had charisma pre-requisites, I think you can make that style and the charisma stat more valid than otherwise. You need to have charisma matter in combat as well as out of it. The morale ideas as well as "action/hero" points would further validate charisma as a worthy ability.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been posted before.

In 3.5 Charisma is used to determine what level of magic spells you could cast. If you had a 15 Charisma you could cast 5th level spells. Paladins used it for healing and turning undead. Clerics used it for Turning. It was also used to modify several skills.

So at least in 3.5 it wasn't a dump stat.

No, it's still a dump stat, if you're not a sorcerer or paladin. (I won't even say cleric, as turn undead was weird.)

 

[Barastrondo]

The basic problem with charisma is that if all it does is enhance social interaction, only one person in the party needs it. Everyone else can pull dark cloaks over their heads, stand back and let the party negotiator handle in of the tricky stuff while they play the part of the ugly nasty looking stupid looking henchmen (and in some cases, looks need not be decieving).

Depends on the setting and scenario, though. If the adventure is playing out at the Imperial Palace, and you're informed to leave your ugly nasty-looking stupid-looking henchmen at the door, then the rest of the party will spend a lot longer doing absolutely nothing, and probably the one person in the party with Charisma can't catch all the clues in the Palace gala because he can't be everywhere at once. And of course, many characters have secondary goals that require at least a modicum of social skills: lead an army, found a thieves' guild, win the heart of the efreeti princess, and so on. You are not going to charm the Princess Tira'Qabal of the Thousand Molten Swords by standing in the back of the party with a black cloak on while your buddy says "You should hook up with my ugly nasty-looking stupid-looking henchman."

Of course, that feeds right into your next point:

The secondary problem with charisma is that it depends on the GM to make charisma relevant. Too many DMs take the tact that what you are supposed to do is fight. If you don't fight, you aren't rewarded with XP. If you try diplomacy when you aren't supposed to, it inevitably fails to yield a meaningful result.

Exactly. And it also depends on the players as well. You get much better returns on charisma if you're interested in goals that aren't best achieved with fighting; if all you want is gold and XP, yeah, that's also going to result in fighting at all times even if the DM is open to other avenues.

When I offered to run a 4e game for some of my co-workers, they voted for a Renaissance Italy-inspired fantasy game. Without much prompting from me, they gravitated more toward Charisma-notable builds: the rogue took a build that used Charisma as a rider for many of his powers, the "necromancer" used a warlock as the basis, and the newcomer who offered to play a leader settled on a warlord. All of these players have demonstrated strong interest in making allies, wooing romantic interests, getting involved in intrigues, that sort of thing. The swashbuckling milieu made it understood from the beginning that rewards like that would be common, if you were up to claiming them.

Rules tweaks like adding riders to certain builds that add given bonuses if you have a high Charisma help. But the real meat and drink of a game where above-average Charisma is common is incentives to impress, charm and inspire NPCs. And that probably relies on table dynamic more than anything.

 

[Diamond Cross]

Well, here's an idea.

Maybe the modifier for Charisma can be used as a percentage bonus to xp?

 

[DumbPaladin]

Well, here's an idea.

Maybe the modifier for Charisma can be used as a percentage bonus to xp?

Is that fair to the player running a Fighter who rolls something like 18, 16, 16, 12, 8, 8 and has to put his two bad stats into SOMETHING, and doesn't want to choose Str or Con?

I think the right path is to reward players for not automagically ignoring Charisma, not penalize them. A bonus to luck, or destiny/action points, plus the social interaction, perhaps a bonus to gold per level due to aristocracy, something along those lines for making up for the loss of 1E & 2E's hireling rules ...

I really like the idea of high-CHA people being less likely to be targeted in combat, too.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

If someone had lots of Charisma, and they're my opponents, I'd probably go after them because I think they might be the leader and killing them might dishearten the other opponents.