D&D 5E The Misrepresentation of Charisma

[ExploderWizard]

There are a variety of factors that have developed over the course of editions to reduce the importance of Charisma.

Originally, stats were generated randomly, so there were no actual 'dump stats'. The CHA score directly affected reaction rolls. Poor reactions had a greater chance of leading to combats that were not desired. The game could be "won" via treasure accumulation by any means. Combat was the most dangerous and potentially career ending of these options.

Followers and retainers/henchmen were quite important. The CHA score was used to determine how many of these important companions you could have, and how loyal they would remain in times of great danger.

Fast forward to the current state of the game and we have encounter based XP (the bulk of which comes from combat encounters), the role of henchmen and followers greatly reduced or eliminated, and reaction determination reduced in importance in many instances because the objective is to fight anyway. The rules in general lean toward more frequent combat with ever decreasing consequences for employing that as the primary option sunup to sundown.

The game as it stands with the current rules reduces the need for Charisma except for a handful of potential encounters that require social interaction, and even many of these can be battered down with a combat option if things don't work out. There are also very few instances that require a charisma saving throw.

When the game is crafted in such a way that the PCs don't actually NEED to get along well with anyone but fellow PCs to be successful and survive than any resources towards that end are little more than optional window dressing.

 

[Yunru]

The game as it stands with the current rules reduces the need for Charisma except for a handful of potential encounters that require social interaction, and even many of these can be battered down with a combat option if things don't work out. There are also very few instances that require a charisma saving throw.

I'd say it goes further than that, as combat normally guarantees Exp, whereas (depending on DM) socialising your way through might provide nothing.

 

[Corwin]

I'd say it goes further than that, as combat normally guarantees Exp, whereas (depending on DM) socialising your way through might provide nothing.

For someone who just stated how important it is to stick to the books as a baseline, I'm fairly certain you are incorrect. I do not believe 5e directs DMs to award XP for combats moreso than other types of encounters. In fact combat, as 5e identifies it, is only a third of the game.

Also, sticking to the books you keep insisting must be followed, combat does not guarantee XP. Says so right in the rules.

 

[Yunru]

For someone who just stated how important it is to stick to the books as a baseline, I'm fairly certain you are incorrect. I do not believe 5e directs DMs to award XP for combats moreso than other types of encounters. In fact combat, as 5e identifies it, is only a third of the game.

Also, sticking to the books you keep insisting must be followed, combat does not guarantee XP. Says so right in the rules.

On the contrary, every stated monster has a value for the experience awarded on being defeat.

 

[Corwin]

Are you one of those DMs who lets a 15th level character benefit from squishing a sewer rat because he's one XP point away from 16th level?

On the contrary, every stated monster has a value for the experience awarded on being defeat.

"Defeated," huh? Does the book define "defeated"?

 

[Yunru]

Are you one of those DMs who lets a 15th level character benefit from squishing a sewer rat because he's one XP point away from 16th level?

"Defeated," huh? Does the book define "defeated"?

If the sewer rat has an xp value, yes.

As for the later, don't know, does the book define "pedantic"?

 

[Tony Vargas]

Because they don't exist in either of the generations I've played.

Some sort of magic resistance (if not outright immunity) has been featured in almost every edition (assuming that's what you meant by 'generation...' ...either way, which two, specifically, and in what order...?). So, the point that a DM might run a campaign that favors or disfavors one source of power, type of damage, strategy or tactic is perfectly valid - especially in 5e, where the DM can darn well do what he pleases, thankyouverymuch.

 

[Yunru]

Some sort of magic resistance (if not outright immunity) has been featured in almost every edition (assuming that's what you meant by 'generation...'). So, the point that a DM might run a campaign that favors or disfavors one source of power, type of damage, strategy or tactic is perfectly valid - especially in 5e, where the DM can darn well do what he pleases, thankyouverymuch.

Very much true in and of itself, but afaik there's nothing that would render a Wizard impotent as was suggested.

At worst, the Wizard can just buff his or her allies.

 

[SirGrotius]

I've found this most egregious in online SP games, where I'd build a party but obviously punt the charisma skill. This would break some of my vision at character creation, but I'd eventually forget about it while going through the game. That said, this is another reason why the video game versions of D&D never pulled me in as did the live game. My fault.

 

[Sunseeker]

I'd say it goes further than that, as combat normally guarantees Exp, whereas (depending on DM) socialising your way through might provide nothing.

This always annoys me, especially at tables that discourage murderhoboing. I mean, if you don't want us to kill everything in our way, why do we earn nothing for exploration, investigation, socializing and so forth? This was one thing I really liked about 4E encounter design, XP was not awarded based on what you killed, but how you solved the encounter. Bypassing it entirely through cleverness and guile was worth exactly as much XP as killing the room and looting the bodies.