D&D General Rethinking Charisma

[PvtTommyAtkins]

I am advocating for using more attributes for social interactions.

D&D has had the same six attributes from 1-5e Three related to physical, 2 to mental, and one social (sort of). Charisma started off as being really leadership- it affected your number of followers, and how well you could get them to follow orders. When I started playing in 2e it was generally explained as how good you looked (we were 12 forgive the shallowness). From 3rd on it was expanded to skills and even being a spell related attribute to get it a little more love an viability.

However it seems that it, while not "overpowered" is pretty shallow for defining an entire personality. I mean, the "I seduce the dragon" bard meme has been used how many times? However, it shines the light on the fact that social interaction is generally relegated to one roll for one attribute, while combat is divided amongst three attributes and several rolls.

Creating MORE attributes seems unnecessary and dorks up compatibility.

So my solution is to re assess what Charisma is used for in game. At its core, have Charisma be the character's ability as a leader. So it should affect things like morale and group initiative.

For the ol' I seduce the X social encounter- well, what does that person find attractive? Roll a d6 for a random attribute that defines what the "target" finds most important and have that attribute modify the roll.

For social skills, if you can explain another attribute, why not? Example interrogation/intimidation: strength (I break something in front of the target) or constitution (I'm large in stature) or even wisdom or intelligence (tricking the other person into slipping up and revealing information)

Dividing social stuff up makes each character more socially viable rather than everyone just looking at the sorcerer/warlock/bard to do all the social interaction.

As always, I'm interested to see the community's thoughts on how this can be expanded, or why this is a horrible idea

 

[toucanbuzz]

It's a solid idea, and one that's probably already in use at many tables: decouple skills from ability scores - which is similar to your random assignment. I began doing this when using the Advanced 5E (Level Up) ruleset for a campaign.

If I roll for social interactions, I prefer them to be based off an attribute that would impress/influence the target. It might be the STR and muscles of the warrior seducing the guard, or the brilliant way the scholar weaves his arguments with INT, or the logical traps created by WIS. Alternately, I might give advantage on a CHA-based check if the other attribute is high and might impact the situation but not dominate it.

While many circumstances may warrant the "default" score (e.g. there's not too many attributes for swimming), D&D gives you the very freedom you're talking about. It's not a video game where you're locked in.

 

[aco175]

I tend to think that other skills can come into play on most things, but at a penalty. I might be looking for a performance check to influence the court. A history check might allow for remembering the dance or poem or something that was used the last time the court was swayed 50 years ago.

I could allow all the party to help out in the scene and have the wizard or someone trained in history to check, and allow another person trained in insight to see if the group is at least interested in having a performance.

I could also have the one person with charisma in the party make the other checks and have the results affect the one performance roll, perhaps with advantage.

I think I like having as many people in the party help out and have the players try to think of creative ways to use skills.

 

[payn]

I am advocating for using more attributes for social interactions.

D&D has had the same six attributes from 1-5e Three related to physical, 2 to mental, and one social (sort of). Charisma started off as being really leadership- it affected your number of followers, and how well you could get them to follow orders. When I started playing in 2e it was generally explained as how good you looked (we were 12 forgive the shallowness). From 3rd on it was expanded to skills and even being a spell related attribute to get it a little more love an viability.

However it seems that it, while not "overpowered" is pretty shallow for defining an entire personality. I mean, the "I seduce the dragon" bard meme has been used how many times? However, it shines the light on the fact that social interaction is generally relegated to one roll for one attribute, while combat is divided amongst three attributes and several rolls.

Creating MORE attributes seems unnecessary and dorks up compatibility.

So my solution is to re assess what Charisma is used for in game. At its core, have Charisma be the character's ability as a leader. So it should affect things like morale and group initiative.

Charisma is for sure used by leaders, but its not only intended for leadership itself. Its force of personality! How effectual a character is on those around them. Your level of presence is determined by charisma. Which is why a character can be absolutely beautiful from a conventional standpoint, but go largely unnoticed as a wallflower becasue they do not accentuate their beauty. Or, how a fugly scarred pirate captain keeps his sailors in line through pure intimidation and a stout command.

Id have issues making the high cha character being the defacto leader. Morale seems more like a wisdom domain, and initiative would be better suited for intelligence for a group. Now, bolstering morale, or leading a group for initiative maybe. I dont like the idea of locking it down to a specific ability.

It seems, they wanted to open up all ability attributes in 5E. Though, the completely lackluster skill system leaves it too open to interpretation to the point the stats have no general meaning amongst players. For some thats a boon becasue they thrive in rulings over rules play, but other want more guidance. Which is why I wish there was a skill module to expand 5E more in this area.

For the ol' I seduce the X social encounter- well, what does that person find attractive? Roll a d6 for a random attribute that defines what the "target" finds most important and have that attribute modify the roll.

I'd rather role play the situation than randomly roll a die to find out what a character thinks. Seducing something is contextual and shouldn't be something you can just declare and roll a D20 to make happen. YMMV.

For social skills, if you can explain another attribute, why not? Example interrogation/intimidation: strength (I break something in front of the target) or constitution (I'm large in stature) or even wisdom or intelligence (tricking the other person into slipping up and revealing information)

Dividing social stuff up makes each character more socially viable rather than everyone just looking at the sorcerer/warlock/bard to do all the social interaction.

Thats how its been intended to work for some time. Again, I think that there is no direct series of skills to highlight these actions, players are often at a loss of what is capable. Also, it really depends on GMs. Some may look at the skill chart and ask, "do you have X?" and thats the end of it. Others might say, "great roll a Str check for me..." So, I think how the game works is soemthing players and really GMs ought to negotiate at the beginning and during play.

As always, I'm interested to see the community's thoughts on how this can be expanded, or why this is a horrible idea

I'd say adventure modules that illustrate how a GM can/should make all attributes more useful in social situations would be more helpful then adding rules. YMMV.

 

[ezo]

We use CHA for conviction as well as morale, strength of personality, etc. so any affect which current is WIS-save might easily be moved to CHA save instead.

We have also moved it to Clerics (conviction of faith) as it makes sense for Paladins (who are already CHA casters). However, Sorcerers are CON and Warlocks are INT.

This removes too much CHA-reliance IMO.

Otherwise, as others have mentioned, skills are not locked into abilities. They are "related" 9 times out of 10, sure, but nothing is locked in.

FWIW, we use STR for Intimidation much more often than CHA. CHA is more for persuasion or deception IMO.

 

[GnomeWorks]

I mean, the "I seduce the dragon" bard meme has been used how many times?

The most ethical use for a time machine would be to go back to whoever started this meme, and quietly remove them from the mortal coil before they can do so.

As for how to consider Charisma: in my mind, Charisma is self-actualization and proactive spiritual defense, as opposed to Wisdom being about enlightenment and passive spiritual defense. In terms of stat comparisons, CHA is to WIS what STR is to CON, more or less.

For instance, I've made pretty much every domination-type effect call for a CHA save, not a WIS save. Whereas stuff like confusion and similar other "muddle" effects go against WIS. High WIS makes you hard to dupe, because you're attuned to the world and its rhythm; high CHA makes you hard to control, because you know who you are and what you're about.

 

[GMMichael]

However, it shines the light on the fact that social interaction is generally relegated to one roll for one attribute, while combat is divided amongst three attributes and several rolls.

Who's doing this relegating? WotC? If your opponent uses a logical fallacy, you use Wisdom to detect it. To use your own, Intelligence to assemble one. Then seal the deal with a Charisma check to sound like the good guy when you deliver.

So my solution is to re assess what Charisma is used for in game. At its core, have Charisma be the character's ability as a leader. So it should affect things like morale and group initiative.

It is what your D&D version says it is. But sure, a leader might need to tap into CHA to make sure her troops are ready to fight.

For the ol' I seduce the X social encounter- well, what does that person find attractive? Roll a d6 for a random attribute that defines what the "target" finds most important and have that attribute modify the roll.

You might want a Treasure Hoard attribute for this, too. And/or to make Seduction a skill - but I'd call it Persuasion.

For social skills, if you can explain another attribute, why not? Example interrogation/intimidation: strength (I break something in front of the target) or constitution (I'm large in stature) or even wisdom or intelligence (tricking the other person into slipping up and revealing information)

This sounds to me like Rules As Intended. But don't use an attribute just because it sounds good. Westley's bluff that he has the strength to stand and fight Humperdinck isn't a STR or CON check - it's CHA. Actually standing is STR or CON, and doing that successfully makes the CHA bluff that much more believable.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I decoupled skills from ability scores back in 4E and have continued that policy into 5E. So not all social rolls will be made with Charisma, and several other types of rolls will sometimes use Charisma. Whenever I think a check needs to be made I don't go straight towards deciding on a skill, because in 5E one makes Ability Checks. Thus my first step it to decide which of the six ability scores applies to this check based upon what the character is doing or trying to accomplish. If the check has to do with a character's presence, the way they are looked upon by others, their sense of self, their self-confidence... then I will call for a Charisma check. And then only after this decision will I possibly suggest a skill or two that might also apply if the character has proficiency in it-- or the players themselves are free to suggest a reason why a particular skill might apply to the check. If the skill makes sense as per their explanation how it applies, then they can add their proficiency bonus.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Perhaps not surprisingly, I go the opposite direction:

• Stop trying to turn social interaction into combat. Roleplay it out. If the DM can't decide if something would work, by all means ask for a roll.
• Treat Charisma as less about mundane glibness, attractiveness, etc., and more of quasi-mystical/magical "force of personality".

In a recent thread on this topic, a couple of people said something to the effect of "why is social interaction a special case?" Meaning: we resolve everything else with mechanics, why should social interaction be different?

But, again, I think it is (or should be) the other way around: combat is the special case that is resolved by mechanics. Everything else should be roleplayed/narrated, with the goal of rolling dice only as a last resort to resolve real uncertainty.

In fact, I'm going to go start a thread on this topic...

 

[Deset Gled]

For social skills, if you can explain another attribute, why not? Example interrogation/intimidation: strength (I break something in front of the target) or constitution (I'm large in stature) or even wisdom or intelligence (tricking the other person into slipping up and revealing information)

I'd like to throw in a major caveat here: consistency.

No, you don't just let a player argue for what attribute they want to use. That's using the player's social skills instead of the character's. At best, it's a step away from conceptual roleplaying and a step into theatrics. At worst, its toxic behavior where the DMs current favorite gets to use their best stat but the outsider doesn't.

In the combat system, players don't get to just choose when they want to use Str or Dex. There are specific rules for when you use one, the other, or have options for either. The same should apply to social skills. There are conditions where you might use a different attribute. But if you're going to do that, it shouldn't by on a whim. It should be the same each time that situation comes up. And the player shouldn't be choosing which attribute is used, it should be the DM's call based on the scenario.