Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8934982" data-attributes="member: 6877472">I'll give you 3e, even though Fighters did have two Charisma skills (Handle Animal and Intimidate), their utility compared to the meager skill points of the Fighter often meant you were better served prioritizing other things.&nbsp; Though I endured many threads where people argued that &quot;Fighters have so many Feats, it's no big deal for them to take Skill Focus or Persuasive&quot;, lol (which really did put them in a better spot than Clerics, who actually had a reason to think about putting points into Charisma, and had a better skill list for being a face, but equally dismal skill points and way fewer Feat options).I vaguely recall that there was a Charisma Fighter build in 4e, but it was in a later book and I don't think it was very well-supported.&nbsp; And just like 5e, there were classes that mainlined Charisma that were naturally better fits for being faces, like Bards.Honestly, my AD&amp;D memories were basically that everyone was allowed to be a face, regardless of Charisma, as few people understood how the NPC reaction rules worked, most of the social Non-Weapon Proficiencies were in splatbooks, and at worst, you'd have to make a Charisma check.But yes, you can play a Noble Fighter, get Persuasion proficiency and put some points into a decent Charisma and not be hampered in 5e.&nbsp; My first character was like this, a Halfling Battlemaster who I gave a 16 Charisma too.Sadly, it rarely mattered for me because there was still another character in the party who had a better Persuasion check, lol.(Completely unrelated gripe about Charisma-casters: Sorcerers and Warlocks are some of the shadiest character classes in D&amp;D, and the ones most likely to be the targets of prejudice by the common folk.&nbsp; So why are they so good at talking to people?).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8934982, member: 6877472"] I'll give you 3e, even though Fighters did have two Charisma skills (Handle Animal and Intimidate), their utility compared to the meager skill points of the Fighter often meant you were better served prioritizing other things. Though I endured many threads where people argued that "Fighters have so many Feats, it's no big deal for them to take Skill Focus or Persuasive", lol (which really did put them in a better spot than Clerics, who actually had a reason to think about putting points into Charisma, and had a better skill list for being a face, but equally dismal skill points and way fewer Feat options). I vaguely recall that there was a Charisma Fighter build in 4e, but it was in a later book and I don't think it was very well-supported. And just like 5e, there were classes that mainlined Charisma that were naturally better fits for being faces, like Bards. Honestly, my AD&D memories were basically that everyone was allowed to be a face, regardless of Charisma, as few people understood how the NPC reaction rules worked, most of the social Non-Weapon Proficiencies were in splatbooks, and at worst, you'd have to make a Charisma check. But yes, you can play a Noble Fighter, get Persuasion proficiency and put some points into a decent Charisma and not be hampered in 5e. My first character was like this, a Halfling Battlemaster who I gave a 16 Charisma too. Sadly, it rarely mattered for me because there was still another character in the party who had a better Persuasion check, lol. (Completely unrelated gripe about Charisma-casters: Sorcerers and Warlocks are some of the shadiest character classes in D&D, and the ones most likely to be the targets of prejudice by the common folk. So why are they so good at talking to people?). [/QUOTE]

Verification