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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ashrym" data-source="post: 8049770" data-attributes="member: 6750235">That depends on choosing to invest in charisma and a proficiency.  That's the same requirement those other classes have but when the only thing they gave going for them is synergy.Those classes are also looking for charisma, dexterity, and constitution.  That argument also requires those classes to take proficiency at all.  I rarely take those proficiencies on a bard, for example, because the PC can rely on charisma and jack-of-all-trades.  That allows proficiencies in which the PC has low ability scores.Plus a group convincing an NPC can use a group check.  That means the group succeeds if half the PC's succeed to hold closer to average and reduce low roll risk.The 2 bonus ASI's can be as simple as 4 more points of charisma.  It's a choice to not invest. Investing is just a trade off.Relative to the rest of the world instead of specialized characters +8 is "good" as well, from a characteristic view.Uh-huh.There are no foppish or grizzled rules.  Foppish has a negative connotation that would imply lower charisma and skill, being the opposite of a highly charismatic with extra focus and training (proficiency).Foppish is a made up quality attempting to make a point based on that non-existent trait misapplied to game mechanics.  There is no such thing as a low quality set of social characteristics that can be applied to a high bonus.  The high bonus is a positive quality regardless if how it's portrayed.You party based game is in direct competition with each other? ;-)Tongue in cheek; I understand what you are trying to illustrate.I disagree, however.  5e encourages rolling only when the outcome is in doubt.  That small difference in bonus becomes moot most of the time because rolling unnecessarily is not encouraged.I'll point to group checks increasing the number of rolls when it becomes necessary.  It's a more likely average due to more rolls applied and that promotes everyone looking for a bonus.I haven't seen that non-combat dominance since 3e, IME.See above.  Having charisma synergy helps but it doesn't stop a fighter from investing or guarantee the charisma classes also take those proficiencies.Plus, persuasion expert rogues with reliable talent tend to show up charisma characters, regardless. :-DGed sang to summon the gebbeth.  Gandalf is based on Väinämöinen.  Merlin is based on Myrddin Wyllt.They aren't wizards.  They're all bards.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-P" title="Stick out tongue    :-P"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":-P" />I kid. But off-topic, all 3 can be argued as bards following the original inspirations.No guarantee someone is better, and see my comments above.Do you often tell the other player how to build his or her sorcerer?  ;-)It's still tongue-in-cheek.  It's obviously easy to get a good bonus with a class that primarily used charisma by also taking proficiencies.The point is that does not stop a fighter from making that investment if a player is going for the social fighter concept.Bannaret even gives free expertise in persuasion.  That's better than 20 charisma and proficiency even if the fighter has 10 charisma.Samurai gains the bonus proficiency and elegant courtier feature.A player who wants social features on a fighter and never takes them is self-inflicted.  Just build with social activities in mind.</blockquote>

Verification