Can charisma be something more than just dump stat?

[Jack7]

Combat Advantage in RCFG allows you to use any skill in order to gain a combat bonus, if you can describe how it works. "I engage him in flashy reparte, hoping that he will attack less forcibly" is an example of how one might use a Charisma-based skill to increase AC.

You then make a Skill check against a DC chosen by you (higher DCs reflect more bonus). If successful, you get the bonus. If you fail, you lose the attack.

That's an extremely good idea RC, and since we use Describe and Demonstrate that's also one I intend in the future to use in my system. (I'll give you credit of course.) I think I might employ it a little differently but it is a superb idea.

It also frees up all attributes for creative and flexible uses, not merely pr-programmed and overly structured uses. But because of the way my game and system works what I like best is that the idea encourages creativity and innovation on the part of the player (and even the DM) rather than over-reliance upon the Designer to pre-determine the player-DM, and in-game character action/reaction/interaction dynamics. So it's not only a good usage of Charisma, it's a just plain right fine design principle. Course, if you haven't considered it then I'd use the same principle for non-combat situations as well.

Excellent idea. Have some XP.


Well, crap RC. I can't give ya any right now. I'll catch ya later.

 

[GSHamster]

I use a reaction mod whenever someone with a minus or plus interacts with NPCs over something meaningful. I'm surprised to see that some DMs don't.

A lot of people complain when you try and make "roleplaying" obey dice-roll mechanics. They feel that if they as a player make an excellent speech/argument, then that action should be valid in-game, regardless of the stats of their character.

It's an argument that they would never dream of making for a physical characteristic.

It might be interesting to see a game that completely acknowledges this element of play, and only had stats for physical characteristics, explicitly leaving "soft" stats up to the player. For example, a player might have hard numbers (3-18) for Strength, Dex, Constitution, but be required to pick exactly 3 adjectives that best describe their personality.

 

[Kask]

A lot of people complain when you try and make "roleplaying" obey dice-roll mechanics. They feel that if they as a player make an excellent speech/argument, then that action should be valid in-game, regardless of the stats of their character.

It's an argument that they would never dream of making for a physical characteristic.

Here's how I do it. I start the "encounter" thus; I take the Char mod, factor in any NPC predisposition mod, THEN I add or subtract points for effort of the players part when they make their pitch. I then roll and add it together. I grade for effort over acting ability.

In this way if you are trying to RP the encounter well you get rewarded but your PCs Char stat factors in also.

 

[Silvercat Moonpaw]

I think mental stats should just be taken out. The mind isn't as easy to dig definable categories out of as the body.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

In my own home-brewed games, I've made Charisma more useful to characters in a couple of ways.

1st. Charisma determines how far below zero a character's hit points may go before he dies. Once the body gives out, the character's force of personality is the only thing that keeps him alive.

2nd. Charisma determines how many action points a character gains. In a game where a person can literally be favored by the gods, it pays to have good grooming habits (or whatever).

3rd. Charisma related checks determine how well other characters react to your words. You, the player, might be able to make stirring speeches or talk the pants off of a pious virgin. Your character, on the other hand may only be able to say, "you wanna do it?"

 

[Ariosto]

What Kask said! It's fundamentally no different than combat, if you're role-playing actual tactics.

 

[Raven Crowking]

That's an extremely good idea RC, and since we use Describe and Demonstrate that's also one I intend in the future to use in my system. (I'll give you credit of course.) I think I might employ it a little differently but it is a superb idea.

Thank you, Sir.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I kind of like the way Pendragon deals with the issue by not dealing with it at all. Physical attributes get stats, all mental qualities must be provided by the player. If a dull player wants to be a witty charismatic scoundrel then he better be a hell of an actor.

I'm a big fan of players putting forth the effort. If a player isn't the most charismatic person in the world, but thier character is supposed to be, what I want to see is a good faith attempt. That, plus a good skill/stat will get the results. Just rolling and mumbling " I use diplomacy on him" sucks.

As a rule this means that I do like to take skills/stats of the character into account but not without any player input at all. If the character has a great stat/skill then whatever they come up with will be seen in the most favorable light. If the character has an average stat/skill then the player's reaction should stand largely on its own. If the character has a terrible stat/skill then the player's input will be taken in the worst possible light.

As far as balancing combat and non-combat abilities, there is no reason that this isn't possible in a roleplaying game. Roleplaying should not have to be put on pause during combat encounters.

 

[1Mac]

ExploderWizard has a good point. It is too easy and too boring to merely say "I use diplomacy," and something more interesting should be encouraged. But the same can be said for trading basic attacks.

There are parallel solutions to these parallel problems. The more robust solution is a built-in mechanic that rewards the player for using more interesting options in combat or social encounters. This was 4e's intent when developing the powers system for combat encounters and the skill challenge system for social encounters and other non-combat events. One can even use parallel mechanics for these parallel mechanics; hence "social combat" systems that give as many tactical options for social encounters as for combat encounters.

Without developing new systems, another parallel solution is to apply bonuses for clever or interesting descriptions of whatever the player is rolling for. So a compelling description of an attack grants a bonus to an attack roll, as does a compelling description of an argument, or a bluff, or a battle tactic, or a stealthy maneuver, or any number of non-combat actions.

I take the opposite approach of ExploderWizard. Yes, the player should be able to influence the effectiveness of his character. But since role-playing is about playing characters with abilities their players lack, I feel that character abilities take prominence over any abilities the player might impart, such that any contradiction between the two should favor what the character can do. We should favor the focused combatant with excellent results when he fights, and we should favor the focused diplomat with favorable social interactions. But to give the fighter equal effectiveness at diplomacy is unfair to the player who forwent combat effectiveness to be a great diplomat.

 

[Karents]

Charisma is NOT a dump stat

You just have to get a character that can use charisma correctly. For instance, I currently play a 3.5e Bard (level 12, but she's going through a half-celestial level adjustment...). Anyway, with the +4 to charisma that my bards template just gave her on top of a cloak of charisma, she now has a charisma score of 32. My GM uses this quite often in game play. She gets the ability to draw crowds of support just by unveiling her face. Our group never pays for food, constantly gets money, ect. She even has a few stalkers.

Anyway, it totally depends on if you play for the roleplaying or for dungeon crawling. with the rp aspect, a character with a high charisma can make for quite a few funny dungeons.