D&D 5E The Misrepresentation of Charisma

[Sunseeker]

You could call for a Charisma(Investigation) check. If you're a player, then at at least ask "hey, can I apply my Investigation skills to that Charismacheck?"

Although I dislike SAD characters, I do like the more general skills over the more specific ones, because it gives more room for my players to make a reasonable argument that their skill in *SKILL* should be applicable to whatever they are attempting to do.

 

[Henry]

Why wouldn't your Charisma help prevent the orc from ever wanting to try putting his axe in your face?

It might... but in the majority of games I've ever been in, orcs are chaotic evil forces of nature that have never been interested in discussing things. It takes at least Two seconds to say, "let's talk this out", it takes about a half a second for an axe to the face.

If not an orc, then same could be said of a Bulette, or Umber Hulk, or Owlbear. If you know in advance your campaign will include more than occasional opportunities for Social Interaction, then most groups will spare a thought to Charisma. If they have no such indication, then they have no reason to "waste" valuable stat points on CHA.

 

[nexalis]

I roleplay my Charisma 8 character as a bit of a lemming: lacking in confidence, irresolute, and easily swayed. He is not a boorish ass; he is just a nonentity who lacks a voice of his own.

 

[pdzoch]

Group checks are for when a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, so it would require a fictional action declaration along those lines. I'm not a math guy, but the rules say "in such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren't," so the intent appears to be that a group check would not be a penalty. Someone smarter than me will have to say whether the math supports that intent. My experience at the table says that it does since you mitigate the risk of that one guy failing the check and blowing it for everyone else at the table.

Sure, which is why it's great. If one (or maybe even two) have a charisma deficiency, then it might not have a big impact, but if the majority of the party are lacking... well characters are strengths and weaknesses, and they just encounter a result of their group weakness.

Everytime I open the rule books, it feels like I discover something new. The DM's guide has an optional rule called loyalty that sort of fit the group charisma check. The loyalty score, or loyalty to the party, is based on the highest charisma score in the group. The loyalty is adjusted by everyone's action, and the loyalty of the NPC is to the group, not just the high charisma character. If the high charisma character dies or leaves, the NPC still stays, but the max loyalty score will simply use the next highest charisma score.

To make it a true collective check some sort of aggregate score could be used instead. Or the penalties for a low charisma of the group members could be applied to the loyalty score to illustrate that while ONE of the characters is inarguably charismatic, the other might be just a drag that it can not override the high charisma of the one character.

 

[Corwin]

It might... but in the majority of games I've ever been in, orcs are chaotic evil forces of nature that have never been interested in discussing things. It takes at least Two seconds to say, "let's talk this out", it takes about a half a second for an axe to the face.

Ah, okay. When you said "most players" earlier I didn't realize you meant "most players at your table." I thought you were speaking to what you thought was all of the player base across D&D.

If not an orc, then same could be said of a Bulette, or Umber Hulk, or Owlbear. If you know in advance your campaign will include more than occasional opportunities for Social Interaction, then most groups will spare a thought to Charisma. If they have no such indication, then they have no reason to "waste" valuable stat points on CHA.

Have you ever fought an encounter with (a) creature(s) immune, or highly resistant to, magic? What a waste having that wizard in the party, am I right?

 

[Yunru]

Have you ever fought an encounter with (a) creature(s) immune, or highly resistant to, magic? What a waste having that wizard in the party, am I right?

Nppe because they don't exist. The closest is the Tarrasque, and even then a Wizard is useful to have on hand.

 

[Corwin]

Nppe because they don't exist. The closest is the Tarrasque, and even then a Wizard is useful to have on hand.

Oh, hello. Are you trying to derail our conversation? Because Henry specifically mentioned Gygax and how this has been a problem for 40 years. I even said, "have you ever," rather than "have you recently." So if you are going to interject yourself into a discussion, I would ask that you please at least try not to muddy it.

Also, nothing "exists". This is a game of our imagination.

 

[Yunru]

Oh, hello. Are you trying to derail our conversation? Because Henry specifically mentioned Gygax and how this has been a problem for 40 years. I even said, "have you ever," rather than "have you recently." So if you are going to interject yourself into a discussion, I would ask that you please at least try not to muddy it.

Also, nothing "exists". This is a game of our imagination.

You asked, I answered. If anyone's trying to muddy it, it's the guy who's immediately resorting to "nothing really exists".

 

[Corwin]

You asked, I answered. If anyone's trying to muddy it, it's the guy who's immediately resorting to "nothing really exists".

So you are stating as a fact that no party of D&D adventurers ever faced creatures immune to magic? Good luck with that one.

 

[Yunru]

So you are stating as a fact that no party of D&D adventurers ever faced creatures immune to magic? Good luck with that one.

Nice try, but you specifically asked "have you". And no, no I haven't. Because they don't exist in either of the generations I've played.