After four years of gaming, I have officially become tired that Charisma is always dumped. It has become especially aparent after having my 6 players make characters for a Tome of Battle game; only the Crusader has a charisma above 10 (and the ones who have 10s instead of 8s did so because they wanted "to be different").
Looking it over, charisma applies to many class abilities and a good number of skills (including arguably the most potent skill in the game, Use Magic Device). Even still, characters who don't have a charisma based class ability generally don't think twice about dumping Charisma.
So I'm here to discuss this situation, and possibly to decide upon an ability to give Charisma, outside of it's skills and current class abilities, to make it useful to everyone. I use the word "useful" because I don't want the stat to become required: there are many archetypes that are fitting to have a low charisma. I just want Charisma to have an ability that can be useful to anyone, so that dumping it becomes a hard choice (just like dumping any stat).
I'd like to gather some opinions before I start throwing out suggestions.
My experience has been Wisdom is equal to Charisma as a dump stat.
I'll admit that I tend to dump Wisdom, but that's because I like playing high Charisma characters. Even still, dumping Wisdom has a mechanical penalty; you have a lower Will save. Charisma lacks such a penalty.
If you are using point buy, it is simply optimal to have some dump stat. The player trades a penalty in some less used aspect of the character for a bonus in an area that is central to the character. For a lot of character archetypes, Charisma is the less necessary and hence the logical choice. (For others, Wisdom makes some sense, although the effect on Will saves is something of a check on this.)
I don't know there's much you can do about that. If you are using point buy or any other alternative that allows some degree of optimization, characters will always end up with their lowest value in the least valuable stat.
What you want to do is try to push Charisma up in importance so it is approximately equal to Wisdom, Intelligence, and Strength. Wisdom is important for Will saves, Intelligence for skill points. Strength is a common dump stat for non-combat types, but lots of classes need at least decent Strength even if it is not one of their primaries. Dexterity and Constitution are too useful generally to make good dump stats.
So what would do the trick? I'm not sure a skill usage would match up to that - most players find a way to ensure that the skill is covered in some way by some high CHA character, allowing the other characters to dump it. If you could come up with some way that CHA is used in saving throws as often as Wisdom is, that might do the trick. (A new type of saving throw used for certain types of magic or psi or something, for example.)
Incidentally, I've suggested elsewhere a variant that doesn't eliminate dump stats, but instead randomizes them. Using point buy, a player can designate a single stat to be generated randomly using either 3d4+3 or 3d6 (averaging dice), at no cost in points. Either way, the stat ranges randomly from 6-15. Make the roll after you've chosen your other stats and chosen race and class. Random enough to generate some variability in the characters, not powerful enough to unbalance the point buy (since even a good value will be in a stat that the player didn't care enough to buy).
Charisma gets dumped because you have to have some class ability to use it for it to be worthwhile, whether that's lay on hands or the diplomacy skill. It controls use magic device, sure, but there's been better ideas than buying cross-class ranks of use magic device.
Another thing is that you only need one character in the party with the social skills. There's no need for two diplomancers, so 3/4 of the party members can dump charisma. That's not really true for any other stat, as they have personal penalties for low scores, as opposed to charisma's group bonus for high scores.
My suggestion would be to add some cha-based feats, like for instance cha-based fighter feats along the lines of whirlwind attack. That chain of feats encourages fighters, who don't really need intelligence, to get at least 13--something similiar could be done for charisma, surely.
I feel this way as well, because I always have found that the highly charismatic people in the world are the truly powerful ones, the ones that can move the masses, inspire an army, etc. I'm still thinking on what to do to give Cha a boost in my setting, but so far, a house rule that has done me some good is having cha give the PC a number of "action points" that they can use to boost rolls they make. So if you've got 18 on Cha, you've got 4 points to spend on any roll (Be it a save or an attack, or whatever) per day. Some people might say that it would give too much of a boost to sorcerers or bards.. but meh, I don't find it unbalancing at all.
Charisma gets dumped because it has no effect on most games. Often in the game of Dungeons and Dragons I find that if you cannot hack something to bits, or blow it to smithereens, or stick a shank in its spine, then you cannot defeat it. It's not often the players can defeat the dragon, bypass traps, and get the treasure all with words. Make charisma more important by making it an option; make the NPCs of the world more friendly and negotiable with a charismatic character, and let the characters occasionally win with nothing but words.
It's a DM style thing.
Charisma governs social interaction, and that's all it does. (Unless you're a rare case with class abilities based upon it.) A lot of gamers I've met seem to make one or both of the following assumptions:
A. "We won't have much to deal with that we have to sweet-talk our way out of."
B. "If we have to, we'll just RP our way through, without making any actual Charisma-based skill checks."
Assumption B is the real killer. Of course Charisma isn't given a high priority as an ability score if a player who's reasonably quick on his feat can talk his way through any situation based on his own speaking talents, despite the fact that his character, with a Charisma of 6, wouldn't be nearly as socially adept!
I had a DM once who would "translate" for characters with low Charisma, when their players were too well-spoken. So when our barbarian (Cha = 4) was trying to wheedle some first aid from our cleric after a tough battle, "Excuse me, could I have some healing, please?" became "Hey you, gimme some of that healin' shit!"
Personally, I don't like putting words in people's mouths like that, but it made a good point: if your sheet says Charisma 4, you are expected to act like you have Charisma 4. (The same can go for Int and Wis as well, but Charisma seems to be the most noticable offender.)
Personally, I often deliberately keep a low Charisma because I find playing those kinds of personalities (surly, timid, belligerent, or just completely out of touch with people... you decide!) very entertaining. But that's another story entirely.
Constitution is the only stat that I can see never dumping (even then, I've seen one or two rogues who dumped it because they needed everything else). And yes, I do use point buy, because over the years I've grown tired of PCs outshinning other PCs.
Charisma's issue is that there's nothing it does that is important to all characters. Someone mentioned that non-combative character's can dump strength, but even that isn't entirely true; I once made a rogue/wizard who intended on heading for arcane trickster, and while I wanted to dump strength I couldn't do it and still keep myself in a light load (blasted halflings).
Action points really seems to be the only solution that's come to me. So I have two proposals:
1) Add your charisma modifier to the number of action points you gain at each level.
2) Add your charisma modifier to your action point roll when ever you spend action points.
I like 2, because it has a sizable benefit for standard uses, but 1 is more useful in the long run because there are uses for action points that don't utilize rolls.
Again, looking at the literature, most heroes have a high charisma. Yes, there are those who don't, which is why I don't want to require high charisma. But the offered solutions (play up NPC reactions better) don't affect much because, one way or another, the players have to succeed. Yes, sweet talking the guards might make getting into the castle easier, but one way or another the PCs are getting in.
What do you think about my action point idea?
on a tangent, i hate that wimpy characters absolutely cannot dump constitution. it's almost worse for a wizard to dump constitution than a fighter.
Quote from: brainfaceon a tangent, i hate that wimpy characters absolutely cannot dump constitution. it's almost worse for a wizard to dump constitution than a fighter.
I think this is fixed with better death and dying rules. Though my death and dying rules utilize fortitude saves, and my use of WP/VP has made almost no one dump con (I have a monk who has in my current game ...).
Option: When a monster has a choice between two opponents of equal tactical value, the potential targets each make Cha checks. The monster attacks the loser of the check.
Quote from: Epic MeepoOption: When a monster has a choice between two opponents of equal tactical value, the potential targets each make Cha checks. The monster attacks the loser of the check.
Now to abuse this rule. The party's dwarven defender dumps his CHA, maintaining that he is usualy the target of attacks, which is his job in the first place. He even takes a curse to lower his CHA even further.
Quote from: Epic MeepoOption: When a monster has a choice between two opponents of equal tactical value, the potential targets each make Cha checks. The monster attacks the loser of the check.
Monsters base their tactical decisions on their opponents' relative social adroitness/physical appearance/force of personality? That doesn't even make any sense. There are a million better and more relevant
tactical reasons to choose one target over another.
In the heat of battle, is some random critter going to make a split-second tactical decision based on Elfgar the Bard's good looks and easygoing, likeable personality, in contrast to Danny Dwarf's combination alcohol and body odor aroma and excessive swearing? It makes much more sense to pick on whoever looks like the biggest threat, or whoever pissed it off the most, or whoever tastes better, or whoever's the easiest meal (plate mail breaks fangs, fyi), or whoever happens to be closest at any given moment.
Quote from: Luminous CrayonQuote from: Epic MeepoOption: When a monster has a choice between two opponents of equal tactical value, the potential targets each make Cha checks. The monster attacks the loser of the check.
Monsters base their tactical decisions on their opponents' relative social adroitness/physical appearance/force of personality? That doesn't even make any sense. There are a million better and more relevant tactical reasons to choose one target over another.
In the heat of battle, is some random critter going to make a split-second tactical decision based on Elfgar the Bard's good looks and easygoing, likeable personality, in contrast to Danny Dwarf's combination alcohol and body odor aroma and excessive swearing? It makes much more sense to pick on whoever looks like the biggest threat, or whoever pissed it off the most, or whoever tastes better, or whoever's the easiest meal (plate mail breaks fangs, fyi), or whoever happens to be closest at any given moment.
Note the bolded phrase.
The idea is that monsters (henchmen in particular) choosing between two opponents of equal tactical value shy away from the target that seems more confident in his combat abilities in order to better preserve their hides. Remember, low Charisma doesn't just mean burly: it also means less threatening. Intimidation is a function of Charisma.
(If you prefer, replace the Cha checks in my suggestion with Intimidate checks to determine the opponent whose wrath monsters are least enthusiastic about provoking in combat. And in any case, only resort to skill or ability checks when there are two targets of equal tactical value.)
It's come to my attention that mental stats are so much harder to roleplay than physical stats, and the one time I tried to roleplay a low-Charisma person I just had no idea what I was doing. I actually think it's easier to understand how low Int or low Wis affects personality than it is to understand low Cha (and please, no one tell me how, because no matter how many times I read the explanation it still doesn't stick). I personally think it's difficult to not be yourself in terms of how outgoing or not you are, and I don't even think a stat should be tied to how polite one is.
For the latter let me put up an example: rude guy is going to suck at Diplomacy, but he is likely very scary and Intimidating. Yet intimidate is a (Cha) skill. For the first thing â,¬' how outgoing you are â,¬' that makes much more sense. However I think it's no fun to be told that you have to curb how much you like to speak because your stat doesn't reflect that.
Ah, I see. I really do have reading comprehension skills, I swear!
That elaboration makes your viewpoint make much more sense, but it's still not a houserule I'm likely to ascribe to. Combat is a lot faster and messier than our downright courteous initiative system and tidy square grid would lead a person to believe, and those sorts of split-second judgments strike me as improbable.
My idiosyncracies aside, it's hard to fake-out anybody who knows about fighting, regardless of how confidant you are. Anybody with enough cognitive ability to discern confidence from nervousness, and with much combat experience at all, is going to be able to tell the difference between a skilled (if perhaps low-Cha) warrior, and a tricky warrior-portraying-actor or an incredibly confident bungler. Base Attack Bonus would be a better gauge of dangerousness, assuming the observer has the slightest idea of what to look for.
QuoteHowever I think it's no fun to be told that you have to curb how much you like to speak because your stat doesn't reflect that.
anything[/i]-- Charisma moreso than most-- and anybody who tells you you're "doing it wrong" is committing a cardinal sin of gaming.
*shrugs* It was just a suggestion. But yes, I agree that no good DM should force you to alter your dialogue; it's possible to have impecable grammar and an expansive vocabulary but still fail to be likable (or intimidating).
The way to run talking encounters is to let the PCs talk it out, and then have them roll their diplomacy checks (with a penalty if they're rushed, as usual). To encourage good roleplaying, if the player brings up valid evidence or points, they'll get a bonus.
But players who can't act shouldn't be penalized any more than players who can't fight aren't penalized. Yeah, players who are into tactical combat will make better decisions, which is why players with better acting skills get circumstance bonuses if they use them well.
But in your standard hack and slash games, Intimidate is really the only reason a fighter or barbarian will put any ranks into charisma. But still, the lack of a non-skill function is frustrating. Perhaps just utilizing diplomacy, intimidate, and bluff more often would help without having to make any vast rules changes?
As Meepo pointed out, a high charisma warrior will appear more threatening than a low charisma warrior. But charisma has nothing to do with how you physically look, it has to do with how you physically appear. A corpse is going to look the same no matter the charisma the person had while alive; your "looks" are based on your physical stats (strong people are bigger and more muscled, high con people have less fat and are trimmer, and high dex people are tonned and more lithe).
I'm sure there's something somewhat passive for charisma. I once thought about giving all characters a "turning" ability vs. spirits; if you have a holy symbol of a good deity, you make charisma checks to hold spiritual undead at bay; iron could be used to hold a fey at bay ... But this wouldn't come up enough to make it matter.
So Action points are really the best thing I can come up with.
Quote from: Epic Meepo*shrugs* It was just a suggestion. But yes, I agree that no good DM should force you to alter your dialogue; it's possible to have impecable grammar and an expansive vocabulary but still fail to be likable (or intimidating).
"i do say ol' chap, if you shan't drop your large lever-based bladed tool, i shall challenge you to a bout of fisticuffs- i do say, i am quite serious about this. i shall give you to the count of...."
*looks at shoulder*
"its just a fleshwound..."
Charisma Option #2: If you have a positive Charisma modifier, subtract your Charisma modifier from your number of negative levels before determining the penalties you suffer for having those negative levels.
Meepo, that's interesting too. I don't think it comes up often enough (just like my "poor man's turning"), but it's interesting non-the-less.
One thought I had once for eliminating the problems of not being able to play the part of a character with any high mental stat, or deal with any mental-based checks in general, was to create a system that presented only physical attributes, or physical attributes and Mana (or an equivalent measure of magical potential). It'd certainly be difficult, but if a game master and his players handled it properly, the players and the game master could simply act however they wanted for a character. It might look like everyone's trying to play smart and persuasive people at first, but it seems to me that sooner or later distinctions will be made between who is the more charismatic, more wise, more knowledgable, etc.
While I personally don't dump charisma a lot because of the effect on Leadership, my big beef with the way the wotcees handle charisma is their refusal to divorce physical attractiveness from the definition. It lacks logic. A high charisma goblin is still an ugly mug(to other races), it just has great persuasiveness and force of personality.
Best just to dump the mental stats and, as WitchHunt said, let players roleplay those aspects.
I haven't read any of this but i love charaisma
how can you have a bard or paladin woithout at least a +2 Cha bonus. Blimey!
Quote from: So-KeherI haven't read any of this but i love charaisma
how can you have a bard or paladin woithout at least a +2 Cha bonus. Blimey!
Both bard and paladin are, in my experience, secondary picks for most players.
Most parties are happy to do without either of those characters.