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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 79988" data-attributes="member: 158">I think the bulk of Sorcerers, Clerics, Bards, and Paladins would disagree. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />No matter what the generic NPC's in the game are built like, remember that1) They are not optimized to the max they can possibly be, and2) They were written most likely by someone who was not extremely knowledgeable in the rules at the time. If Monte Cook, Skip Williams, or John Tweet typed up those stats in the NPC's of the DMG, and did not assign it to someone else at WotC, I would be very surprised.You can't get by being a sorcerer or a bard with a low CHA.You lose half of your good bonuses as a Paladin without a high CHA.You lose most of your effectiveness as a Bard without a high CHA.Clerics have a much harder time turning undead without a high CHA.Just because CHA is not used as a "to hit" bonus by all characters does not make it useless. In a well-rounded game, its usefulness comes to the fore dramatically.This is not to say that Skill ranks SHOULDN'T be valued more highly than a naturally high CHA. What it means is that in D&D training will always outdistance natural ability, but natural ability supplements it well.What Razzer's PC's SHOULD be paying for is not having a low CHA, but for putting NOTHING in the social skills. THAT'S where it'll hurt.</blockquote>

Verification