My problem is that the books seem to waffle in the flavor description associated with the CHA stat. One minute it's describing the mere "force of personality" as you describe it, and specifically not their agreeableness: i.e. the section of the PHB states you can have a high CHA and not get along with people, you just happen to be strong willed in your opinions and see them through. So why when you look at any of the more savage monster races, the ones with -CHA penalties usually associate it with them being savage and rude and generally disagreeable? Does that mean they don't have the strength of character to stick to their opinions? I can easily see ogres or orcs that have the force of personality to impress their will on the world. I don't see why they're by nature weaker at that.
Fixing the Half Orc ('cause they're broken)
- Thread starter Thia Halmades
- Start date
Nyaricus
First Post
I just realised something here. People are suggesting either -2 specific CHA skills, and +2 Intimidate (and Str for Cha for intimidate), or -2 to all cha skills, and (again) Str for Cha for intimidate.
What i propose is a hybrid of the two here - Half-orcs take a -2 penalty on all charisma-based skill checks except intimidate, and may choose (if favourable) to use his Str instead of his Cha for Intimidate chacks. Why put it this way? Well, not the half-orc gains a virtual +2 on Intimidate (as in they don't have a penalty, per my posted version of the half-orc), and still may use the varient Str-4-Cha intimidate ability. Also, i am still undecided on the Toughness/Endurance debate . . . but anyways, without further ado . . .
A (perhaps??) Final Version of the Half-orc
What i propose is a hybrid of the two here - Half-orcs take a -2 penalty on all charisma-based skill checks except intimidate, and may choose (if favourable) to use his Str instead of his Cha for Intimidate chacks. Why put it this way? Well, not the half-orc gains a virtual +2 on Intimidate (as in they don't have a penalty, per my posted version of the half-orc), and still may use the varient Str-4-Cha intimidate ability. Also, i am still undecided on the Toughness/Endurance debate . . . but anyways, without further ado . . .
A (perhaps??) Final Version of the Half-orc
Thia Halmades
First Post
Morning Nyaricus.
The idea of -2 to all CHA based skills was already suggested by a few people, but the best rebuttal is on page two.
That's why it's (in my current version) specifically limited to those skills which are based around social interaction. Spatzi has an excellent point; just because you aren't sociable doesn't mean you aren't a virtuoso; one doesn't necessarily follow the other. And again, on UMD checks; why wouldn't you be able to Use Magic Items? If they're intelligent items I can see them forming an opinion of you, but my pen doesn't have a strong feeling about me, neither would a wand.
Just some things to consider. Coffee!
Good morning!
The idea of -2 to all CHA based skills was already suggested by a few people, but the best rebuttal is on page two.
That's why it's (in my current version) specifically limited to those skills which are based around social interaction. Spatzi has an excellent point; just because you aren't sociable doesn't mean you aren't a virtuoso; one doesn't necessarily follow the other. And again, on UMD checks; why wouldn't you be able to Use Magic Items? If they're intelligent items I can see them forming an opinion of you, but my pen doesn't have a strong feeling about me, neither would a wand.
Just some things to consider. Coffee!
Good morning!
Spatzimaus
First Post
Thia Halmades said:
To be fair, I can see the counterpoint, and so IMC we do penalize Perform. No matter how fantastic your playing is, if you're an ugly monster, the audience is going to be distracted, and what the Perform check result represents is the overall effectiveness of the performance. In the ages before recordings were possible, appearance mattered; it wasn't just used to distract from an inadequate performance, it was usually PART of the performance. If the audience is uncomfortable around you, it's going to detract from the experience, even if your music is fantastic.
But does that apply to every type of Perform check? Epic storytelling (or dirty jokes) never really relied on that sort of flashy appearance. There's always a use in drama for the ugly, mean-looking guy (the same logic that gives a bonus to Intimidation could be used here). When playing an instrument, you could probably get around the appearance issue depending on the lighting, etc.
For balance reasons, I include Perform on the list of skills to be penalized. However, there's a caveat; any of these "social interaction" skill penalties should be able to be removed depending on circumstance. First, there's the Cyrano effect: if my Half-Ogre writes a beautiful ballad, and someone else plays it exactly as written, whose Perform check is used? (Answer: both, really, but neither would be penalized by my appearance.) Then, familiarity; if I'm Bluffing (or telling dirty jokes to) my friends, who clearly aren't upset by my appearance, should I still get that -2 penalty? (Flip side: if I Intimidate my friends, who KNOW I'm not really a psychotic baby-eating beast, should I still get a +4 bonus?)
The more I think about this one, the more I think UMD shouldn't be CHA-related. There's just no reason. Why should the ability to imitate a Wizard depend on personality and appearance? "Force of will" is all well and good, but it's never been made clear exactly what the mechanism involved is. If anything, I feel it should be a WIS-based skill; I'd personally prefer having no linked stat, but that'd require reassessment of all the DCs since the average bonus would be lower.
Spatzimaus said:
Well, a lot of this goes towards what I've been saying, that WotC is unable to decide what CHA means. Sometimes it means "force of will," like with UMD and spontaneous casting. Sometimes it means sociability, like with most CHA based skills (diplomacy, bluff) and with the CHA penalties to races. Here's the quote from the Player's Handbook:
(Emphasis mine.)PHB p9 said:
To me, this laundry list of traits rolled under one stat seems unwieldly. It precludes an effective, yet obnoxious and ugly sorcerer, or a born half-orc (as written) leader. If you look at any race with a CHA penalty, all of the reasons that they give for the penalty have to do with how they're perceived by others in a social setting. Take dwarves. They're justification for having a CHA penalty is that they're "gruff and reserved." What does that have to do with not having a forceful personality? Most dwarves I imagine are very strong-willed and stick to their opinions. Does the race as a whole having a -2 CHA mean that on average, humans should be able to come in and persuade dwarves enough to let humans rule them? On average, the humans are more forceful and persuasive in their personality to get away with it. But no, this is a case of the designers not having a clear intent of what they mean with CHA.
As I see it, NO race, not dwarf, not half-orc, not troll should have a penalty to CHA unless they're timid and easily cowed. At least then you could have a unified sense of what CHA means: To be able to express your views and will and impress them upon other people/things. To straddle the fence between CHA meaning you're a likeable, pretty person and it meaning you have the will to bend the world around you does no one any good.
Nyaricus
First Post
hee hee hee. . .oh damn!! *falls off computer chair* oh geez do i ever so love cans of worms and pandoras box-like situations (which would be appicable here, probably both, eh).
It seems that this thread has turned into quite the rules discussion revolving ever so faintly alongside half-orcs and their nature. I agree with many of these points, and the fact that CHA is one helluva dumb stat. WotC are sure going on a limb with some of their ideas and concepts. But i suppose you can't blame them. They are trying to stay true to what TSR started, so as not to alienate D&D players - one of the main reasons Paladins are a base and not a prestigue class. Dammit, does that bother me so . . . .
But yeah, WotC probably wouldn't add in a new stat now, just for Attractiveness, naw they are too prudent for that. Sex and seduction rules . . . nope, not happening (although seduction was, abeit breifly, mentioned in S+F) I have read up on what happened with that devil-worship, sucide crap that Christians tried to stick on D&D, and thats just crap. "Burn the witches," indeed.
Oh well, for now, i am satisfactory with WotC d20 system, it did after all standardize D&D. But I definitively plan to have UMD as a Wis-based skill. Won't let those bastard rogues get too much for a high CHA
It seems that this thread has turned into quite the rules discussion revolving ever so faintly alongside half-orcs and their nature. I agree with many of these points, and the fact that CHA is one helluva dumb stat. WotC are sure going on a limb with some of their ideas and concepts. But i suppose you can't blame them. They are trying to stay true to what TSR started, so as not to alienate D&D players - one of the main reasons Paladins are a base and not a prestigue class. Dammit, does that bother me so . . . .
But yeah, WotC probably wouldn't add in a new stat now, just for Attractiveness, naw they are too prudent for that. Sex and seduction rules . . . nope, not happening (although seduction was, abeit breifly, mentioned in S+F) I have read up on what happened with that devil-worship, sucide crap that Christians tried to stick on D&D, and thats just crap. "Burn the witches," indeed.
Oh well, for now, i am satisfactory with WotC d20 system, it did after all standardize D&D. But I definitively plan to have UMD as a Wis-based skill. Won't let those bastard rogues get too much for a high CHA
Similar Threads
- Locked
