Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="(Psi)SeveredHead" data-source="post: 5376253" data-attributes="member: 1165">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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.)</blockquote>

Verification