My PCs lack charisma...

[Roland Delacroix]

heres another idea to 'hit em where it hurts'; thier reputation. Specifically the partys reputation. Everywhere they go have them hear wild stories about Shazak the Wanderer. He slays tarrasques single handed, he knocks down mountains with his fists, he manages to get money back on his tax return. Whenever the PCs ask about something they've done- "Oh yeah, i may have heard....but anyway I heard Shazak did..."

After a while of this have them meet the guy. An 80 lb nerdy looking guy with a constant wracking cough, but the strongest personality they've ever seen. If they get pissed enough to jump him dont forget the leadership feat should give this guy something like 100+ folllowers.

Most players play to be heroic and recognized as such. If you make that impossible they will look to find what they are doing wrong. This don't work to good alone, but coupled with other methods its a strong one-two punch.

 

[EOL]

I would also recommend hitting them where it hurts, but best of all would have been if you had explained the situation before the game started. At this point if you start slamming their low Cha they may feel like your changing the rules on them. On the other hand if in the very beginning you looked at the character sheets and said. "Nothing above an 8 in Charisma. You guys are screwed, there is going to be a lot of diplomacy in this campaign and you're going to be terrible at it."

 

[Zerovoid]

I still think charisma is a dump stat in 3e, and I have yet to see a convincing argument otherwise. If you want to be good at social skills, you are better off putting points into your Intelligence than your Charisma, because of the way the skill point system is in 3e. If you want to be REALLY good at social skills, then you need a high charisma and lots of skill ranks, but if you just want enough to get by, using Intelligence to get extra skill ranks is the way to go.

Example:
I play a dwarven cleric in a 25 pt buy campaign. Normally, I try to put at least a 10 in charisma, but 25 pt buy just stretches my stats too thin, so I have an 8. I try to play a low charisma, which is difficult for me, because usually I'm one of the people who acts as the driving force behind the party. My stats, with the 4th level point going onto wisdom.

Str 13, Dex 10, Con 14, Int 12, Wis 16, Cha 8.

I have three skills maxed out, and 5th level: Concentration, Craft( Armorsmithing), and Diplomacy. Because I wanted my character to be a smith, Diplomacy is the skill I would drop if I had 10 Int, 10 Cha instead of 12 Int, 8 Cha. I suppose I could have dropped by Con, but I wanted my dwarf to be tough, and even if I did reduce it, I would probably put the points in Wisdom.

So, with 8 ranks in diplomacy, I have a total of 8 - 1(Cha) = +7.
With 10 int and 10 cha I would have +0.

In fact, my +7 is higher than most sorcerors would have despite their super high Cha, since diplomacy is a class skill for clerics. The way the skill system is set up, skill ranks vastly outweigh ability bonuses, hence Charisma is a dump stat. IMHO, the Leadership feat is the only good reason for most characters to have a high charisma.

 

[kengar]

I still think charisma is a dump stat in 3e, and I have yet to see a convincing argument otherwise. If you want to be good at social skills, you are better off putting points into your Intelligence than your Charisma, because of the way the skill point system is in 3e. If you want to be REALLY good at social skills, then you need a high charisma and lots of skill ranks, but if you just want enough to get by, using Intelligence to get extra skill ranks is the way to go.

This is certainly true and -to a degree- reflects reality: you can be a person without natural ability who compensates through learning/training. However, this argument could theoretcially be made for any score in 3e. i.e. a lower DEX Rogue buys up ranks, a lower STR fighter can stick to missle weapons, etc. It's not "optimal", but it can happen.

The idea that CHA is "less important" mostly comes from how a given campaign is played. If it were a low-combat/politcial-type roleplaying campaign, a high CHA would be much better than a high CON. Now, granted, most folks don't play D&D to attend city council meetings, but that's not so much a reflection of the rules as how people implement them. Sure, the written rules are geared towards fighting monsters, etc. but that's because combat needs more mechanics than roleplaying, NOT because it's what the game is all about.

Just my 2cp

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, the next time you (and perhaps the players) will know better.
By the way, I think the problem of your player might also be based on their lack of experience with the point buy system.. I believe my first 25-point buy character did only rely on his strength - at first levels, that was okay, but later it became dissapointing (damn! What feat to choose? I don`t qualify for any useful feats! Oh now, again an enchantment...)

I believe in the PHB or the DMG there is also a "standard ability score" range or something like that, this gives a good example how you should distribute scores without giving up to much ...
But for Fighters & Barbarians a Charisma Score of 8 is probably one of the best solutions, though you should always think of the fact that Charisma 8 does mean that you are NOT cool, even not when you just whirlwind through a dozens of orcs and after that slay a dragon.
The Bard (Charisma 16) looks much cooler, even if he only sings a funny song while you do the job.

That might be the advantage of the 4d6 stat roll method - thanks to the randomness you might come up without those "dump stats". On the other hand, there is no guranteed balance, and that is why I prefer the point buy system...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Epametheus]

I think Zerovoid's hit the nail on the head.. Charisma is the least useful stat in the game.

If you want evidence of that, the game designers agree -- look at the generic PC class characters in the DMG, and for that matter, look at the suggestions for making new races. Charisma is listed as the weakest stat in the latter, and in the former case, the only characters there with positive charisma modifiers are the sorcerer, the bard, the paladin, and the cleric -- the obvious message being "only bother with it if your class actually has a direct use for it."

Seriously, with your group of 8 Cha characters, it doesn't even matter -- a monk with maxed out diplomacy (or if things are a bit nastier, a barbarian with maxed out intimidate) will do just fine. No one in your group took a high charisma because they couldn't see any reward in doing so.

Hell, in my experience, Diplomacy itself is one of the most useless skills in the game -- diplomacy gets resolved by the player who is the best talker, not by the PC who's supposed to be the best talker. In one of the campaigns I'm in, the party spokesperson is not my bard with a 30 Cha (yes, this is a high-level campaign) and a +35 Diplomacy check. No, it's the cleric with a 13 Cha and 5 ranks in Diplomacy (a prestige class required the ranks), due to the very simple fact that the cleric's player is much better with "people-stuff" than I am.

And a few questions: (1) are your players new to 3e? (2) Were they aware that they apparently needed to coordinate what they were making for characters? (3) What classes are they?

 

[The Crimster]

I think Zerovoid's hit the nail on the head.. Charisma is the least useful stat in the game.

If you want evidence of that, the game designers agree -- look at the generic PC class characters in the DMG, and for that matter, look at the suggestions for making new races. Charisma is listed as the weakest stat in the latter, and in the former case, the only characters there with positive charisma modifiers are the sorcerer, the bard, the paladin, and the cleric -- the obvious message being "only bother with it if your class actually has a direct use for it."

Seriously, with your group of 8 Cha characters, it doesn't even matter -- a monk with maxed out diplomacy (or if things are a bit nastier, a barbarian with maxed out intimidate) will do just fine. No one in your group took a high charisma because they couldn't see any reward in doing so.

Hell, in my experience, Diplomacy itself is one of the most useless skills in the game -- diplomacy gets resolved by the player who is the best talker, not by the PC who's supposed to be the best talker. In one of the campaigns I'm in, the party spokesperson is not my bard with a 30 Cha (yes, this is a high-level campaign) and a +35 Diplomacy check. No, it's the cleric with a 13 Cha and 5 ranks in Diplomacy (a prestige class required the ranks), due to the very simple fact that the cleric's player is much better with "people-stuff" than I am.

And a few questions: (1) are your players new to 3e? (2) Were they aware that they apparently needed to coordinate what they were making for characters? (3) What classes are they?

I am going to have to disagree with you, Epametheus - despite the fact you have a wonderful face of tentacles.

Whether charisma is a dump stat or not purely dependent on the campaign itself. It's been said above, many times - a game with little or unimportant social interactions means charisma is relatively worthless, but the opposite is true as well.

Diplomacy worthless? Hardly. In my games, if the player (not the character) can talk the talk - it helps. I might give them a bonus to the diplomacy roll. Having it any other way penalizes players' who do not have golden tongues, and sticks them with playing action-oriented fighters for the rest of their roleplaying life - something they may not want to do - but have to, because they can never play a diplomat in your game.

The Crimster

 

[Sodalis]

28 pt buy can get a well balanced player:

three stats at 14 (6*3)
two at 12 (4*2)
and one at 10 (2)

but 32 gives a much better character

two at 15 (8*2)
one at 14 (6)
two at 12 (4*2)
one at 10 (2)

the 15's can be bumped up at lvl 4, 8...

But I don't see why the DM should cater his world to a a character that cannot interact- but you should give them a chance. Before you start gaming, make it known that you will have a fair amount of RPing where they will have to talk to other people (as in real life) and brute force WILL not solve everything...

EX_ when trying to get the audience of a high magistrate, you have to talk to the guards... and if you try to bust your way in- bad things happen. there are peopel out there that are stronger, faster, and tougher than you... but as you have pointd out- these are usually the ones that are not very charas,atic. A flattering statement is usually all you need to get past them...

Give them a day or so to modify their characters before you start the game. Then DM as if you would any other game.

You should not cater to their needs- they should work within your world....

In real life- people who cannot interact is left in the fray,. those that are able to communicate usually gets the farthest... but in an adventuring standpoint- it is good to have a player who is nothing more than a axe with legs... and so it is only important that one person have the charisma...

 

[Tobold Hornblower]

There's really no problem for the party, if they're smart. Once they kill a few things and get some gold, even the most highly paid experts come cheap in 3e.

They just need to hire some low level barrister/agent/negotiator type expert. Either find one willing to travel, or hire someone short term in each new community.

 

[The Crimster]

There's really no problem for the party, if they're smart. Once they kill a few things and get some gold, even the most highly paid experts come cheap in 3e.

They just need to hire some low level barrister/agent/negotiator type expert. Either find one willing to travel, or hire someone short term in each new community.

Hah! True enough.

That's what I love about these boards, you'll find so many differing opinions on what you can do, that you can pick and choose.

The Crimster