CHARISMA: Is it a dud score?

[ARandomGod]

Yeah, but then it's wasteful for a Fighter to have a High STR, when more levels make him hit better and with more damage, too. In the scheme of things, CHA is slightly less useful than the other stats, but only marginally so.

That doesn't seem to correlate at all to me. Firstly, no other score is likely to increase his fighting abilities... just levels. And there's nothing else he might spend his "fighting skill points" in to tempt him to "spread those points" out. There's no making the fighter more well rounded by focusing less on to hit and damage.

 

[Henry]

That doesn't seem to correlate at all to me. Firstly, no other score is likely to increase his fighting abilities... just levels. And there's nothing else he might spend his "fighting skill points" in to tempt him to "spread those points" out. There's no making the fighter more well rounded by focusing less on to hit and damage.

Expertise, Improved Trip, Whirlwind Attack are a few that come to mind, requiring more than a "token presence" in INT, and which add to his ability quite a bit. And I was pointing to the fact that ability scores (with only the exception of INT & Skill points) are VASTLY outstripped as you go above 5th level or so, compared with level bonuses, magic items, and feats. Admitedly, I'm rarely putting less than a 15 or 16 in my STR scores when I'm playing fighters, but the point is, if I survived those low levels, I COULD, and not do badly at all. Same thing with a social-built character - if I survived those days of 4 to 6 ranks in the skill, then the higher levels mean that high ability is less meaningful.

 

[gizmo33]

Yeah, but then it's wasteful for a Fighter to have a High STR, when more levels make him hit better and with more damage, too. In the scheme of things, CHA is slightly less useful than the other stats, but only marginally so.

I was just thinking about this topic. It's not wasteful, IMO, for a fighter to have high strength (maybe you were being sarcastic) and I think this is because:
1. the sheer volume of attack rolls made in a given game
2. damage roll is not based on level

Maybe charisma needs something like this in the mechanics. A roll to determine overall success or failure (the "to hit" roll) and then a roll to determine the degree of success.

For example: A PC walks up to a group of elves and tries to get them to join the party. The Diplomacy check determines whether or not the elves will consider the basic proposition. Success means PCs get consideration. Next, the actual task is considered and a straight charisma roll is made, determines if the elves will follow the PC through the gates of Hell, or just uncomfortably close. Maybe you roll a d8* for "impact" ("personality damage" ?). And so a low Diplomacy check means a miss, the elves aren't really even going to listen to what's being said, and there's no reason to determine it's "impact".

Here are some reasons (among many) why a DM might not like this scheme:

1. DMs like to determine reaction roll success based on story or PC actions exclusively.
My answer - you can't make a stat that affects random rolls important if you don't allow for those random rolls.
2. Some people don't like PCs with armies of henchmen and followers because it complicates the game.
My answer - if charisma is going to be important, you can't go limiting possible interactions with NPCs.
3. Too many dice rolls.
My answer - Two rolls, IMO is not too many, compared to the hours spent moving miniatures and rolling out the details of combat.

(* I like d8 better than d20 sometimes because I think d20 gives too wide a spread of numbers in some cases. I could win a surprising number of arm wrestling contests against a storm giant if we were both to roll d20 and add strength bonuses)

 

[diaglo]

2. damage roll is not based on level

oh but it can be with the use of the right feats.
in theory BAB = level for fighters.

weapon specialization is therefore lvl dependent. implicitly.

also power attack... is BAB dependent ergo.. level dependent.

 

[ARandomGod]

Expertise, Improved Trip, Whirlwind Attack are a few that come to mind, requiring more than a "token presence" in INT, and which add to his ability quite a bit.

True. But I've never seen anyone put a single skill point into ANY of those skills! Mostly IMC we just take the feats. (Said tounge in cheek... of course. I agree that you'd need INT for these abilities, but it doesn't seem to have any bearing on the charisma/skill point issue I was talking about.

And I was pointing to the fact that ability scores (with only the exception of INT & Skill points) are VASTLY outstripped as you go above 5th level or so, compared with level bonuses, magic items, and feats. Admitedly, I'm rarely putting less than a 15 or 16 in my STR scores when I'm playing fighters, but the point is, if I survived those low levels, I COULD, and not do badly at all. Same thing with a social-built character - if I survived those days of 4 to 6 ranks in the skill, then the higher levels mean that high ability is less meaningful.

That's my point too, actually. At higher (and even medium) levels the skill points you put into the skill will be nearly all important, and will vastly outweigh the bonus from the stat the skill is based off of. So you'd be doing better, if you have to make a choice, to buy up your intelligence for more skill points rather than to buy up your charisma. A 14 intel 8 charisma person will quickly be much better at diplomacy *and* bluff than a PC with 8 intel and 14 charimsa.

 

[The Shaman]

Of course, for someone who's nothing BUT charisma based skills, a high charimsa is mandatory. But for a general character, he's going to want to put those skill points in many things. Having more skill points makes it more likely that he'll have the skills to always be at max skill in diplomacy/bluff while still maintaining a healthy balance of other skills.

I'm not sure what a "general character" is, other than a high ranking military officer, I suppose.

"Someone who's nothing BUT charisma based skills" can be an extraordinarily effective adventurer, subject to the specifics of the game and setting. I like my Smart heroes as much as the next gamer, but Charismatic heroes are a lot of fun to play.

Are we fogetting that characters are about concepts as much as mechanics? Or am I just old fashioned that way? Isn't the best reason to put points (or place a high rolled score) in Charisma because it fits the character to do so?

 

[Henry]

That's my point too, actually. At higher (and even medium) levels the skill points you put into the skill will be nearly all important, and will vastly outweigh the bonus from the stat the skill is based off of.

I'm just extending this thought to all attributes, not just CHA. The problem is you have to LIVE to get to those higher levels, and from first through 3rd or 4th, your attributes is one of the main sources of bonuses. In this sense, CHA is no worse off than any other attribute. However, rarely do DM's kill off your characters if you can't convince someone to do something, the way he will if you can't hit the bad guy hard enough who is threatening you with a spear.

 

[gizmo33]

also power attack... is BAB dependent ergo.. level dependent.

It's almost beside the point to argue about weapon specialization and power attack. IMO neither one is as level dependant as skills. At the levels we play at in my campaign, ACs of foes tend to rise with level, and hitting in combat is never a sure thing. So a higher level character can never really "afford" to take more of a penalty on to-hit than a lower-level one can. Power attack IME tends to get used for a -2/+2 adjustment, which is only forbidden to 1st level characters.

But IMO it's beside the point because the point is really whether or not Charisma is under-utilized/valued, etc. And also, is there a point in figuring out a way of making Charisma more important in DnD?

I'm not a fan of the "Charisma=mystical force of personality" design that seems to be on the increase in 3.0, although it has some interesting possibilities, it oftentimes seems to close to Wisdom for my tastes.

What I personally try to do IMC is to make interactions with NPCs simulataneously more meaningful, and more random. Your standard dungeon crawl allows for random outcomes in combat, but I've never really seen an adventure module where Diplomacy allowed for the same random outcomes, module-writers tend to assume a certain linear model when dealing with these sorts of situations.

 

[diaglo]

It's almost beside the point to argue about weapon specialization and power attack. IMO neither one is as level dependant as skills.

ime weapon specialization has a prereq of lvl 4. and then greater weapon spec and improved weapon spec and epic specialization all have lvl dependencies...

power attack is important for overcoming DR too. for things like stone walls or doors for guys with not much in the way of str or admant... weapons.

or other uses... like during a CdG.


but that is for fighters mostly.

 

[ARandomGod]

I like my Smart heroes as much as the next gamer, but Charismatic heroes are a lot of fun to play.

Are we fogetting that characters are about concepts as much as mechanics? Or am I just old fashioned that way? Isn't the best reason to put points (or place a high rolled score) in Charisma because it fits the character to do so?

Yes. You are just old-fashioned that way. Not that I'm saying that's bad, mind you. More I'm saying the game is bad for not better supporting it! I've been known to put a high (ish) score in Charisma just because I wanted the character to be, well, charismatic. It's fun, it's role-play... and unfortunately by RAW it's also heavily punished.

As I've learned on more than one occasion, while you're less likely to get killed for failing to talk someone into something ... as Henry stated, sometimes you will get killed for being a charismatic person instead of a strong one, or dexterous one, or a "healthy" (Con score) one. Or even instead of an intelligent one or perceptive (wisdom) one.

It's true that charisma skills suffer the same from skill points as any other ability. But OTHER abilities do other things than minorly help out related skills. Every single class can carry more and hit harder/more often in melee for having a high strength stat. Every class gets hit less often and makes more saves and is better at hitting things at range with a high dex. Every class gets more HP's and better saves from a high Con. No class fails to get more skill points from having a high intelligence. All classes at the very least get better will saves from a high wisdom score.

What do you get from a high charisma score? A good feeling in your role-playing heart and killed off at an early level because you put your 10 in Con for "role-playing" reasons instead of putting that 14 there, the 14 you used for Charisma. (Or at least that's what happened to me last time I had a high charisma because it fit the character better to do so.)