PDA

View Full Version : How to make Charisma not be your players' dump stat



RyanM
2009-08-05, 02:36 AM
For D&D 3.5, maybe other versions too.

Every power gamer knows that charisma is the least important attribute ever unless you're a sorcerer, bard, or paladin. This is, if you ask me, a clear indicator of a significant flaw in the rules. In fact, didn't the rulebook for 2.0 or something say that every single attribute is the most important one (not that it was true then, either)?

Possibly the most fun and humanizing approach (though one you should only try if your players are all good roleplayers as well) should be to look at the party's Charisma scores and how they differ from each other, and try to get NPCs to act appropriately. If half the party members have large CHA penalties and the other half have good bonuses, NPCs may act as though there are two different groups. If only one PC in particular has a CHA penalty, a quest giver may decide not to trust that one person, asking that they leave the room when critical information is revealed, giving them the shaft when doling out equipment to help the party on their way, etc. If everyone has a CHA penalty except for the nearly-unarmed female bard, a stupid yet overpowered Groo-like adventurer may mistakenly believe that she has been kidnapped by evildoers and ambush the party in order to "rescue" her!

However, sometimes rules help as well, and I've got plenty of those. Here's a possible set which makes charisma reasonably important for any character class whose party must interact with people in the course of their questing. I highly recommend using these rules in conjunction with Rich's extended Diplomacy rules (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/jFppYwv7OUkegKhONNF.html).

First of all is a new stat, the Party Charisma Modifier (PCM). It is what it sounds like, you just add together all the party members' CHA bonuses. This number represents how the party as a whole is perceived, and thus will affect how NPCs initially react to any member of the party. A handsome and persuasive bard traveling with a troupe of filthy, vile-smelling orcs is not likely to make a good impression, simply due to the company he keeps.

To change the initial reaction of an NPC (from what you think they should "normally" be, as dictated by the circumstances), determine the NPC Attitude Adjustment ( :p ) by rolling a D20 and adding the Party Charisma Modifier plus any circumstance modifiers that may apply. This reaction is rolled only once for each NPC or group the party interacts with, unless at least half of the party's membership changes. And only a group of adventurers has enough presence to change an NPC's Attitude for "free;" individuals have to try Diplomacy, Entertain, etc.

The modified Attitude applies to each individual member of the party, unless they were already known to the NPC. Their Attitudes towards the party and to each member will "follow" each other; if one member raises that character's Attitude, their opinion of the party (if they have one) will also rise; and vice-versa, if an NPC sees a character in a party which is so extreme that they change from their default Attitude, their opinion of that character will shift accordingly.

Example circumstance modifiers (because this is a group stat, the modifiers are larger than usual)
-20: obvious alliance with a demon or hated enemy
-10: obvious or known affiliation with a disliked person or group
-5: obviously from a different place, in a xenophobic area
-2: dirty and worn armor, clothes, and other equipment
0: looking clean and respectable, knowing local customs
+2: attractive or fashionable (as opposed to powerful) clothes or equipment
+5: obvious or known affiliation with an ally or friend
+10: known for doing good deeds in the area
+20: known as saviors of the world
Note that "obvious affiliation" includes that person being in the party. It doesn't get much more obvious than that.

Suggested Roleplaying for "Adjusted" NPCs:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/syldssuf/charisma1.gif
Naturally, "attack" should be replaced with something like "run away," "alert the guards," or "throw rocks from the rooftops" when dealing with NPCs that have neither class levels nor bravery.

Suggested Relationship DC modifiers to Diplomacy for "Adjusted" NPCs:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v116/syldssuf/charisma0.gif
Note that these numbers correlate to the Relationship category in Rich's extended Diplomacy rules; they are not a third modifier on top of Relationship and Risk/Reward. Pick modifiers based on either the chart or a developed relationship, as appropriate. You may also decide to get ideas for how to roleplay characters by looking at where on the chart a particular bonus/penalty is.

These rules can hopefully make it a little less viable to only have one charismatic front man, while everyone else is totally repulsive. But at the same time, the penalties are slight enough that a good bard can still make up for her companions' social shortcomings. And the rules and charts may even be a good way to slowly introduce roleplaying, and the concept of NPCs as people to a party mainly composed of twinks and munchkins.

Now some examples. Let's say you're GMing for a party of 4 adventurers with Charisma modifiers of -1, 0, +2, and +4. This puts their Party Charisma Modifier at +5. They approach a farmer in his field to ask for permission to use his well to refill their water skins. The farmer already met the bard by herself in town, earlier in the day, and was entertained enough by her songs that he has a Helpful attitude towards her; that's good for an additional +5 circumstance bonus. This farmer is a generally nice, trusting guy to begin with, so he is considered Friendly before the Attitude Adjustment. Rolling a D20 (or have one of the players do it, if you want), you get a 4. 4 + 5 + 5 = 14, and so the farmer remains Friendly towards the adventuring party. His Attitude did not change, so he remains Helpful towards the Bard in particular.

Later in their adventure (with the same PCM), they return to the fighter's home town and enter the blacksmith's shop to buy new weapons. The blacksmith was bullied by the fighter as a child and still loathes him to this day, for a -10 penalty. However, by this time the group is hailed far and wide as the heroes who prevented a war which would have devastated the country, for a +20 bonus. You roll an 18, for 18 + 5 - 10 + 20 = 33. This Attitude Adjustment is enough to make the normally-Indifferent Blacksmith Friendly towards the party. Seeing his childhood enemy in the company of such fine adventurers, he decides to forgive and forget and his Attitude towards the fighter in particular also shifts up one level from Unfriendly to Indifferent.

Seguile Daengz
2009-08-05, 04:12 AM
I like it! There's some serious thought gone into that matter. I don't think it's appropriate for all games, since some people still leave these kind of things to actual roleplaying, but something like an overall score for the party's appearance is great. And for random people, that "attitude creation system" promises great entertainment.

Just think of it: a rival party that's constantly credited for the player's actions, just because they don't look like a bunch of robbers and child-stealers. Beautiful!

jmbrown
2009-08-05, 05:16 AM
Charisma's a dump stat because D&D is primarily (and derived from) a war game. No matter how much rp'ing you stress, the rules are based primarily around killing stuff and not getting killed yourself.

Wizards completely dumped the focus on heroes and their minions because a low charisma character in pre-3E couldn't find hirelings worth a damn. Those hirelings were important too because there was no measure of difficulty so you'd have monsters at level 1 with a 25% chance to inflict an instant death disease. I like reaction modifiers and knowing how many people you can hire or how many followers you get when you build a fortress at level 9 but it's easier to roleplay it out.

When I DM, I alter prices based on the party's average charisma. Take the number of people in the party and multiply it by 12. That number is the "average" charisma the party is expected to meet*. I then add up the party's total charisma. Finally, I divide the average charisma by the party total. The resulting number is the modifier to the base price of an item.

For example, a party of 5 has an average charisma of 60 (13*5). The party's total charisma of all 5 members is 55. 60 / 55 = 1.09. If the party buys an item, they pay an extra 9% of the base cost. If the party's total charisma is 70 then they'd have a 15% discount off the base price.

*I set the charisma per person to 12 because the average person is more likely to pay more for an item than he will pay a fair price. Only above average people (charisma 12 and above) can expect to pay "fair" prices with truly exceptional hagglers getting discounts.

Merchants are far more willing to raise prices than lower them.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-05, 06:45 AM
Charisma damage. That's why you don't make anything a true "dump stat". :D

I disagree with most of the examples you give. "A character with low charisma may be reserved, gruff, rude, fawning, or simply nondescript". Low force of personality. If I'm following around a princess, and somebody attacks me simply because I'm reserved, nondescript, and a follower-type slightly fawning personality... I'd complain if my alignment changed when I killed the guy. (The trust thing I can believe, because having quest givers arbitrarily distrust people is semi-realistic; and Charisma is as good as any factor to determine who is distrusted).

What if the handsome bard parks the orcs outside the door, so to say, and goes in to negotiate himself? I know my whole adventuring party doesn't cram into one merchant shop all decked in armor to make the shopkeep feel uncomfortable.

The lowest Charisma regularly seen is 8. Intelligence 8 is around the lower 20% of the population, IQ in the 80s. That's not retarded; and similarly, Charisma 8 isn't socially retarded.

Suppose we have a sorcerer, Charisma 18, who is the local mage and generally altruistic, and has even cleared out ankheg infestations and bandit camps. He has a 14 effective PCM. Now, suddenly, he brings with him his wizard friend who has helped him during these things, with Charisma 14 (he rolled well). Why does he suddenly get benefits for dragging along another mage?

Suppose we have a bard, Charisma 18, who leads a string quartet. He brings along the rest of his quartet, who have identical stats. Why does he suddenly get a benefit?

Hyozo
2009-08-05, 06:59 AM
...

Okay, what sane person still dumps charisma? Charisma has been proven to be the most important stat in the game, mandatory for nearly half of the classes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60159) (don't post in that topic, it's long dead, bur look at it). Wisdom is the better dump stat, especially if you can fit Force of Personality into your build.

Ashtagon
2009-08-05, 07:49 AM
Interesting link, hyozo. But that table kind of misses the point. For classes that need Cha, it's important. For classes that don't depend don Cha as a primary attribute, it's utterly unimportant under RAW. No other base attribute has such a high level of class-based situationality.

2e made Cha important by having reasonably developed rules for recruiting red shirts and other hirelings. Yes, they'd die in droves. But these meat shields did a grand job of saving your own hide. I'm not sure this matches the standard fantasy tropes too well though.

My personal favourite houserule to make Cha important is to make it modify the number of fate points a character receives 9something out from Unearthed Arcana). This is even justified in the fantasy story tropes - charismatic heroes reach the end of the story; the rest die, or just plain aren't written about.

PairO'Dice Lost
2009-08-05, 08:24 AM
Interesting link, hyozo. But that table kind of misses the point. For classes that need Cha, it's important. For classes that don't depend don Cha as a primary attribute, it's utterly unimportant under RAW. No other base attribute has such a high level of class-based situationality.

In fact, I'd bet so many classes rely on Cha because so many people dump it; you get little to no benefit unless it's your primary or secondary stat, so they encouraged you to make it your primary stat by keying classes off it.


Regarding PCM and such, it's an interesting idea. I've used a system like that myself before, though not as formalized as the one you have, and I might try it out at some point.

Regarding dissuading people from making Cha a dump stat, one option I've looked at is making all save DCs based on Cha and reducing the prevalence of DC boosters. Monsters already do it, so why not do that for the PCs? SAD casters are reined in a bit (and are made more sad by the change :smallwink:), ToB types don't need to base DC on multiple stats, etc. Of course, I've also been working to reduce MAD in classes (my monk is now dependent only on 2 stats, for instance), so it may not be a plug-and-play option, but you can always try it out.

Lysander
2009-08-05, 09:49 AM
The problem with high CHA is that a DM won't grant benefits to that one player. It's always used to negotiate on behalf of the entire party. High CHA characters should coast through life and have gifts and favors thrown at them.

Your bard should be the guy riding a war horse while everyone else has a normal horse because the local lord liked his performance enough to give him a prized stallion.

Fighter: "It's too far to see if anyone is patrolling the ramparts"
*High CHA Guy whips out a telescope and looks through.*
Fighter: Hey, when did you get a telescope?
CHA Guy: I spent some time with this young widow at the last town we went through. Her husband used to be a scout before he died in the war and well, she didn't need his old telescope.
Fighter: That was a gift? Those cost 1,000gp!
CHA Guy: It was very thoughtful of her.

When fighting a powerful wizard, all things being even, the high CHA guy is the one the wizard tries to disintegrate last.

Ossian
2009-08-05, 10:38 AM
Might sound naive, but RPG is the way to go.

I have many urban setting scenes in my adventures, when the situation gets tense and if the fight happens it goes down fast and dirty. I normally like to couple this with solo situations, when the PC has to be smart, reactive, intuitive, intimidating, and everything is played with a mix of talk (affecting with modifiers the roll) and DCs that, if not beaten, make things go awry.

It is loads of fun and a good reason to push my PCs to cultivate Charisma as well as other stats, because after all I like to DM a bunch of nice heroes rather than a bunch of powerful but intolerable slashers and hackers with the occasional good looking man in thighs that gets the discount merchandise for everyone else.

M.

Steward
2009-08-05, 12:31 PM
Honestly, the reason I dump Cha is because so many DMs say something like "This game will be 50% hack and slash and 50% roleplaying", but what actually happens is that the Diplomacy or Bluff DCs are so high that you can roll a 19 before modifiers and still not be able to communicate with anyone except for the other party numbers. (Imagine if you did that to other stats. (I have an 18 strength but I can't even pick up a sword!)

Your fix helps out a lot since it makes it possible to use the Charisma stat even if your spellcasting doesn't come from it. The group Charisma bonus also makes a lot of sense. It always bugged me that if a hot guy decided to join a group of inbred cannibal murderers he would still be equally popular as the town's equivalent to the Pope.

RyanM
2009-08-05, 01:13 PM
I disagree with most of the examples you give. "A character with low charisma may be reserved, gruff, rude, fawning, or simply nondescript". Low force of personality. If I'm following around a princess, and somebody attacks me simply because I'm reserved, nondescript, and a follower-type slightly fawning personality... I'd complain if my alignment changed when I killed the guy. (The trust thing I can believe, because having quest givers arbitrarily distrust people is semi-realistic; and Charisma is as good as any factor to determine who is distrusted).

I know the fluff text says that CHA = force of personality rather than actual social skills, etc., but I really think that's only there to justify CHA being used for Sorcerers, undead turning, etc. It sort of doesn't make any sense at all. I just assume that because a CHA mod penalty reduces Diplomacy, Bluff, etc., it means your character has to be somehow off-putting, whether it's because they're rude, or because they're too reserved/shy to negotiate properly, or because they give off bad vibes, or whatever.

Actually, I threw away some rules early in the design phase on this, which would randomly determine an NPC's thoughts on characters, based on their individual Charisma mod. Things like "boring," "incompetent," "ugly," "smelly," "suspicious," etc. for characters with largish penalties. The funny thing being that a single character can be offensive in totally different ways to different characters, which is somewhat true to life.


The lowest Charisma regularly seen is 8. Intelligence 8 is around the lower 20% of the population, IQ in the 80s. That's not retarded; and similarly, Charisma 8 isn't socially retarded.

An IQ of 80 may not be retarded, but it's not exactly smart either. Someone with an IQ of 80 will be one of those people who... all I can think of is examples from when I worked in retail.

Let's just say that IQ is a bell curve, and the stats in D&D are arranged on one, too.


Suppose we have a sorcerer, Charisma 18, who is the local mage and generally altruistic, and has even cleared out ankheg infestations and bandit camps. He has a 14 effective PCM. Now, suddenly, he brings with him his wizard friend who has helped him during these things, with Charisma 14 (he rolled well). Why does he suddenly get benefits for dragging along another mage?

Well, first, keep in mind, a Cha of 14 is only a +2 mod, so his PCM only increases by 14%.

But let's put it another way. We've got a sorcerer who knows some spells and stuff (obviously, right?). He wants to kill some ankhegs and bandits, but isn't sure he can do it on his own. So he brings along his wizard friend for backup. Why does he suddenly get benefits for having another person there? :smalltongue:

Or, this one bard is especially talented, a virtuoso. He's able to attract crowds and perform in shows solo. But, if he were backed up by a string quartet, would his music be better, or worse? Really, these days even supposedly "solo" musicians do have a ton of backup guys. The example works even better with a troupe of dead average bards. None of them is much of a draw on their own at all, but operating as a string quartet (or barbershop quartet, or whatever), they could be more successful.

A group of dashing, shining knights is always going to be more impressive to the peasantry than just one guy running around by himself. And their leader, the dashingest and shiningest of them all, is going to be even more impressive when backed up by his very-nearly-as-shiny cohorts.

But if you've got a single knight surrounded by lackeys who are all just somehow off-putting due to that charisma penalty (whether they're directly offensive to one or more of the five senses, or they just give off bad vibes, or they just seem a bit too reserved and Al Gore-like, or whatever), he's probably not going to make as good an impression as he could've, if he'd been alone. The guy with the weird lackeys is... well, that's what he's going to be known for, and known as: "the guy with the weird lackeys."

-----------


In fact, I'd bet so many classes rely on Cha because so many people dump it; you get little to no benefit unless it's your primary or secondary stat, so they encouraged you to make it your primary stat by keying classes off it.

That's what I see, from that table. It's mainly third party and prestige classes. Of the core classes, sorcs and bards have it as a primary stat (and one of those is decidedly underpowered in combat), while paladins and clerics have it for a secondary stat (though clerics can safely make CHA a dump stat in campaigns which lack undead). That leaves us with barbs, druids, fighters, monks, rangers, rogues, and wizards, for whom it's a safe dumping ground.

-----------


The problem with high CHA is that a DM won't grant benefits to that one player. It's always used to negotiate on behalf of the entire party. High CHA characters should coast through life and have gifts and favors thrown at them.

A great example for the roleplaying section, rather than the rules part. If the king can really hate that one guy with the CHA penalty, it's certainly possible he'll take a shine to the one guy with a +5 bonus.

AstralFire
2009-08-05, 01:23 PM
I know the fluff text says that CHA = force of personality rather than actual social skills, etc., but I really think that's only there to justify CHA being used for Sorcerers, undead turning, etc. It sort of doesn't make any sense at all.

It makes perfect sense. Charisma is how strong your mind is, Wisdom is how resilient it is, and Intelligence is how flexible it is. It's used like this to great effect in Star Wars Saga, actually, where Wisdom determines how learned you are in the Force and Charisma determines how good you are at making use of the Force with an individual ability.

Actually, I threw away some rules early in the design phase on this, which would randomly determine an NPC's thoughts on characters, based on their individual Charisma mod. Things like "boring," "incompetent," "ugly," "smelly," "suspicious," etc. for characters with largish penalties. The funny thing being that a single character can be offensive in totally different ways to different characters, which is somewhat true to life.



That's what I see, from that table. It's mainly third party and prestige classes. Of the core classes, sorcs and bards have it as a primary stat (and one of those is decidedly underpowered in combat), while paladins and clerics have it for a secondary stat (though clerics can safely make CHA a dump stat in campaigns which lack undead). That leaves us with barbs, druids, fighters, monks, rangers, rogues, and wizards, for whom it's a safe dumping ground.

Not a single one of those classes is third party. Or prestige.

Bards are better than anything in the PHB not named 'Sorcerer' 'Wizard' 'Cleric' or 'Druid'.

A rogue who hasn't invested anything in social skills is not a terribly useful rogue, generally speaking, as most traps are better dealt with by Summon Monster I.

The core rules leave Charisma a bit underpowered, but Charisma is used extremely frequently outside of it. I'd argue Strength is the stat least used by a class not making primary dependency on it.

Godskook
2009-08-05, 02:54 PM
Honestly, the reason I dump Cha is because so many DMs say something like "This game will be 50% hack and slash and 50% roleplaying", but what actually happens is that the Diplomacy or Bluff DCs are so high that you can roll a 19 before modifiers and still not be able to communicate with anyone except for the other party numbers. (Imagine if you did that to other stats. (I have an 18 strength but I can't even pick up a sword!)

Going down this same vein a little farther, when a player with an attack bonus of 25 says "I attack the orc....rolling", the DM doesn't say "Since you didn't specify a downward thrust, your attack misses, next" where as when a player with a diplomacy bonus of 25 says "Alright King, we'll kill the orcs, but we'll need to get paid handsomely", the DM might say "Since you talked like an ass, the king executes you all instead of sending you on the quest". I.e., with 5 stats, the penalties/bonuses granted are purely mechanical, but with one(charisma), you're required to not just have a high stat, but to jump through hoops as well. Charisma essentially has its own little microcosm of MAD.

Ashtagon
2009-08-05, 03:49 PM
The core rules leave Charisma a bit underpowered, but Charisma is used extremely frequently outside of it. I'd argue Strength is the stat least used by a class not making primary dependency on it.

You've obviously never played with the encumbrance rules, although admittedly this is kind of made irrelevant by bags of holding.

Dust
2009-08-05, 04:15 PM
This is SPECTACULAR.

Icewalker
2009-08-05, 04:38 PM
Going down this same vein a little farther, when a player with an attack bonus of 25 says "I attack the orc....rolling", the DM doesn't say "Since you didn't specify a downward thrust, your attack misses, next" where as when a player with a diplomacy bonus of 25 says "Alright King, we'll kill the orcs, but we'll need to get paid handsomely", the DM might say "Since you talked like an ass, the king executes you all instead of sending you on the quest". I.e., with 5 stats, the penalties/bonuses granted are purely mechanical, but with one(charisma), you're required to not just have a high stat, but to jump through hoops as well. Charisma essentially has its own little microcosm of MAD.

Eh, depends on the DM. I'd allow a higher charisma character much more leeway on their phrasing than a low charisma character in RP, to avoid something like pissing off nobility.

AstralFire
2009-08-05, 05:01 PM
You've obviously never played with the encumbrance rules,

Actually, I have.


although admittedly this is kind of made irrelevant by bags of holding.

Bingobango.

Also, as both a DM and a player I prefer characters who use little loot. I don't like loot dependency; the loot is either a highly valued and rare tool, or it shouldn't be that important to me.

Altima
2009-08-05, 05:14 PM
There will always be dump-stats. Instead of penalizing players that take advantage of it, reward the players who don't. Perhaps they'll get their goal weapon a little earlier, or maybe they'll be able to finagle someone to give them a (permanant) stat boost somewhere else.

Unless a spellcasting stat is based on it, the only thing Charisma modifies is certain skill points. And, in the end +2/-2 to a skill is relatively minor compared to, say, an extra intelligence modifier (which means you'll, overall, be more skilled in charisma based skills anyway), wisdom (which gives will saves), strength (damage), dexterity (AC and initiative), and so on.

This is part of the reasons why dwarves are one of, if not the, best races in 3.5. They get a penalty to a dump stat, a bonus to a very good stat that any class can take advantage of, and a smattering of useful skills and adjustments.

And, it's kinda funny. Wanna know the dump stat of choice in 4e? Intelligence! I'm wondering if it's a coincidence, or someone screwing with the players...

Delwugor
2009-08-05, 11:19 PM
4 of the last 6 characters I've had used Charisma (or the system's equivalent) extensively. Though lately I've gotten kind of burnt out by it.

It really depends on how much of the game occurs out of "action". In investigative campaigns (what I like to play and run) it is just as important (if not more) than intelligence. Dungeon Crawl campaigns it's biggest use is for specific classes unless you like to talk your way out of combat situations. :smallbiggrin:

The funny thing about playing charismatic is that it actually helps me some with working with people in RL. I'm one of those "smart" IT types that doesn't use his intelligence to actually think whether the intelligent thing to say is the right thing to say. :smallconfused:

Ashtagon
2009-08-06, 01:13 AM
Actually, I have.



Bingobango.

Also, as both a DM and a player I prefer characters who use little loot. I don't like loot dependency; the loot is either a highly valued and rare tool, or it shouldn't be that important to me.

In the 1e DMG, there were several paragraphs expounding the importance of making treasure as bulky and as awkward to recover as possible. Not merely "lots of coins", but also "too big to put in a bag", and anything else the creative DM could think of. The intent was the elevate the game above mere hack and slash; players would have to think about a different puzzle to get the XP represented by that treasure.

It sounds like your preferred game style (lightweight treasure and bags of holding) have made Str irrelevant for non-melee types. Fine if that's what you enjoy, but be aware it is your playing style that has turned Str into a dumpable stat, not the actual rules.

AstralFire
2009-08-06, 08:22 AM
...Bags of holding are... pretty central to the game.

Lysander
2009-08-06, 08:33 AM
Another big problem is that combat based players don't want their teammate to find a peaceful solution.

I once played a game where we encountered this group of golem like enemies that spoke an ancient forgotten language. Well, guess what. My rogue not only had decent CHA, I was fluent in ancient.

Me: Hey! I could negotiate with them and find out what they want!
Everyone Else: Ok, so I'm going to take my greatsword and try to cleave as many as possible.
DM: Roll initiative!
Me: But...I speak...ok, fine. *draws rapier*

Ashtagon
2009-08-06, 10:14 AM
...Bags of holding are... pretty central to my game.

I corrected your post for you.

Your game is not necessarily the same game anyone else plays. In all the campaigns I have ever played, there has been one bag of holding between them. Everyone agreed it destroyed one part of what made the game challenging.

Mr.Moron
2009-08-06, 10:18 AM
Donkeys are medium creatures willing to go into strange places. They can carry 150lbs and cost all of 8gp. If they break, they're as easy to replace as any other piece of mundane equipment as they are extremely common.

They make great dungeon loot-carriers when magical solutions aren't available. In a pinch, you can use them to set off traps if you don't have summons. That's kind of mean though.

AstralFire
2009-08-06, 10:32 AM
I corrected your post for you.

Your game is not necessarily the same game anyone else plays. In all the campaigns I have ever played, there has been one bag of holding between them. Everyone agreed it destroyed one part of what made the game challenging.

No, you didn't.

They are central to the game; they're one of the most iconic parts of the system. Jokes about them can be made and fully understood between fans of all four editions, no issue. I do not actually make much use of them, and many of my parties do not even have them when I am DM. Encumbrance is probably more in effect for me than many DMs because I try to limit the party to carrying a few important items, rather than having a Zelda Backpack. But to deny that a bag of holding is pretty standard in 3E and that the designers - in creating what they themselves called a 'christmas tree effect' - did not expect a party to have them is denying the system.

Ashtagon
2009-08-06, 11:12 AM
...Bags of holding are... pretty central to my game.


...I do not actually make much use of them...

I have no time for this kind of sophistry. I've you are going to claim both extremes of the issue as your home ground in this discussion, then it is quite useless to talk to you.

AstralFire
2009-08-06, 11:13 AM
You're the one who changed it to 'my game.'

I said 'the game.' And I spent most of my time initially talking about how I carry less items to begin with. If the heaviest thing I'm carrying in the first place is the breastplate I'm wearing, I'm not too concerned with encumbrance.

Don't make assumptions about how I play the game and get snippity if you're wrong.

RyanM
2009-08-06, 01:19 PM
I said 'the game.' And I spent most of my time initially talking about how I carry less items to begin with. If the heaviest thing I'm carrying in the first place is the breastplate I'm wearing, I'm not too concerned with encumbrance.

That is still your style of game, though. The games I like to run and play are more realistic ones, where characters have to carry around most of their essentials, spells like "create food and water" are increased by several levels, hunting for food is much more difficult, water is not always potable, etc. Realistically, a week's provisions are going to weigh about 50 pounds per person, if you're including water.

You're spot on that more recent editions try to make encumberance as small an issue as possible. That's why I like the "food is freakin' heavy!" style. It makes players have to think long and hard about what they keep and what they pitch, rather than bringing along everything that was in the shop.

Also, a lot of players like to complain, and get into arguments like "why should I have to carry your food?", as though they were actually carrying it. Always entertaining.

Ashtagon
2009-08-06, 01:42 PM
You're the one who changed it to 'my game.'

I said 'the game.' And I spent most of my time initially talking about how I carry less items to begin with. If the heaviest thing I'm carrying in the first place is the breastplate I'm wearing, I'm not too concerned with encumbrance.

Don't make assumptions about how I play the game and get snippity if you're wrong.

{Scrubbed}

To the OP: Sorry for this thread derailment. Since I don't intend continuing it any further, hopefully the thread will get back on-topic.

Mr.Moron
2009-08-06, 01:56 PM
That is still your style of game, though. The games I like to run and play are more realistic ones, where characters have to carry around most of their essentials, spells like "create food and water" are increased by several levels, hunting for food is much more difficult, water is not always potable, etc. Realistically, a week's provisions are going to weigh about 50 pounds per person, if you're including water.

You're spot on that more recent editions try to make encumberance as small an issue as possible. That's why I like the "food is freakin' heavy!" style. It makes players have to think long and hard about what they keep and what they pitch, rather than bringing along everything that was in the shop.

Also, a lot of players like to complain, and get into arguments like "why should I have to carry your food?", as though they were actually carrying it. Always entertaining.

Donkeys yo, 8gp. A bag of holding minimally costs 2500gp and holds 250lbs.

300 Donkeys cost 2400gp, and can cumulatively hold 45,000lbs.

and unless you're traveling through the desert you don't even have to feed them. Simply let them strip the natural surroundings bare of vegetation and move on. Problem solved.

Okay, that is a bit of an extreme (and silly) example. However there lots of alternatives to carrying problems besides magic.

Honestly, you've got to go really, really, really out of your way as a DM to either bend rules or circumstance before encumbrance and supplies become a major problem. There are just too many ways, even cheap/mundane ones to keep flush with resources.

RyanM
2009-08-06, 02:10 PM
300 Donkeys costs 2400gp, and can cumulatively hold 45,000lbs.

and unless you're traveling through the desert you don't even have to feed them. Simply let them strip the natural surroundings bare of vegetation and move on. Problem solved.

Hourly Handle Animal checks. Especially difficult ones to get the donkeys to go into dungeons or other "unnatural" places. Relatively difficult Use Rope checks, to keep the donkeys tied down every night, and if leaving them at the entrance to a dungeon.

Stopping metagaming is limited only be the DM's imagination. :smallbiggrin:

One time, in fact it may've been my first "realistic food" game, the players decided they wanted only the lightest and most compact foods, and that they meat shields would gather and boil water every day while the spellcasters prepared spells, to cut down on the load. This was about the 100th of a long line of metagaming attempts, so I basically said "fine, but you're going to need to forage and supplement your diets to remain healthy." They apparently forgot about that, because they ate nothing but pemmican for about 3 months in-game.

So I decided to give them all scurvy. :smallbiggrin: By coincidence, the symptoms showed up right around the time they found their first major magic item. One of the players mistook the symptoms (I didn't just say "you have scurvy now," I described the symptoms) for radiation poisoning (especially when "cure disease" spells and potions didn't work)! Then by coincidence again, they ditched all the magic items right around the time they went to town, and spent some of their loot on a big feast which included fresh fruit.

They spent the rest of the campaign eschewing magic items, and the mage was always rather hesitant to cast spells. "Uh, can this blacksmith make me some armor out of lead?"

Actually, the rest of the campaign ended up pretty fun and challenging that way.

AstralFire
2009-08-06, 02:13 PM
Yes, I made some assumptions about your game.

But the two lines I quoted were in your own words, and they directly contradict each other.

No; changing a word in my own statements is not 'in [my] own words'. You have a very strange concept of 'in your own words' when it involves altering them.


That is still your style of game, though. The games I like to run and play are more realistic ones, where characters have to carry around most of their essentials, spells like "create food and water" are increased by several levels, hunting for food is much more difficult, water is not always potable, etc. Realistically, a week's provisions are going to weigh about 50 pounds per person, if you're including water.

You're spot on that more recent editions try to make encumberance as small an issue as possible. That's why I like the "food is freakin' heavy!" style. It makes players have to think long and hard about what they keep and what they pitch, rather than bringing along everything that was in the shop.

Also, a lot of players like to complain, and get into arguments like "why should I have to carry your food?", as though they were actually carrying it. Always entertaining.

There's nothing wrong with that, and I actually welcome games that try to heighten verisimilitude. I generally discourage the full casters, since reality warping just makes it too hard to run that style of campaign. I was merely speaking to the nature of the edition. I tend not to manage food, though.

Clementx
2009-08-06, 02:16 PM
Honestly, you've got to go really, really, really out of your way as a DM to either bend rules or circumstance before encumbrance and supplies become a major problem. There are just too many ways, even cheap/mundane ones to keep flush with resources.
Or you could hand-wave encumbrance after PCs pay resources to be able to ignore it, because they are freaking bored herding donkeys, and want to get on with saving the world.

Most people will play Oregon Trail when they want to be a struggling traveler, and DnD went they to be heroes/villains. DnD offers players a choice of which they want once they could spare 2,500gp, if one is deadly dull.

Hey, wasn't this thread about Charisma?

Mr.Moron
2009-08-06, 02:18 PM
Stopping metagaming is limited only be the DM's imagination.


Metagaming? Someone bringing along pack animals known for being "stolid in the face of danger" when venturing into the wild is metagaming? Donkeys are reliable methods of carrying around gear they have been for thousands of years. That wouldn't be they case if it was hard for untrained people to keep them secured and under control.

Certainly not 300. But 3-6 donkeys is more than reasonable for a party-sized expedition and not a measure that requires special skill to manage.

Strawman
2009-08-06, 02:26 PM
Donkeys aside, I think the main reason why charisma seems to be useless most of the time is because its in-game uses are restricted to human levels. This is a problem of perspective. By the time a fighter is level eight, they can already perform acts of super-human strength. A fifteenth level bard with 22 charisma should be able to do similar things. Remember, this is like Elvis+Sinatra+Timberlake. Superhuman.

Make someone eternally loyal to you in a snap. Convince a crowd of people that 2+2=5. Bar maids and waiters fall for the charisma-ridden at the drop of a hat.

If charisma is to be useful, it has to be able to solve actual problems. As it is, it mostly serves as a slight utility, or a way to improve your odds of survival a little bit. Certainly not worth the points.

So maybe charisma should be able to disperse entire angry mobs. If you have enough points in it.

Mr.Moron
2009-08-06, 02:26 PM
They apparently forgot about that, because they ate nothing but pemmican for about 3 months in-game.


So I decided to give them all scurvy


Pemmican typically includes dried fruits or berries (Cranberries were common) and will provide enough Vitamin C to ward off scurvy.

They probably should have also been allowed a heal check (effectively Knowledge[Medicine]) or Status spell to identify the symptoms. Even then just saying Cure Disease doesn't work was fairly lame.

Honestly the whole thing example of what I meant by going out of your way to bend rules & circumstance to make things go the way you want.




Hey, wasn't this thread about Charisma?


I've honestly never really seen the "Screw Charisma" problem, outside of Barbarian-types. Maybe it's just because I tend to play in groups that use more liberal point-by or rolling methods, but I don't see folks like to dip below 10.

It's useful for enough things that I don't think it needs an overhaul. In the big picture it's a more relevant stat to the game as a whole than Strength or something.

RyanM
2009-08-06, 02:27 PM
300 is metagaming, 1 donkey for each person is not.

But if you think getting a donkey to go where you want it to requires "no special skill," try picking any city slicker and any donkey, and put them together. Then watch the ensuing hilarity.

Handle animal isn't just for mounts.

Also, really, donkeys are far too cheap in D&D. In ancient times, a good donkey would be worth quite a lot. Enough that your average 1st level party might be able to afford one, if they pooled their resources.


Pemmican typically includes dried fruits or berries (Cranberries were common) and will provide enough Vitamin C to ward off scurvy.

They probably should have also been allowed a heal check (effectively Knowledge[Medicine]) or Status spell to identify the symptoms. Even then just saying Cure Disease doesn't work was fairly lame.

Honestly the whole thing example of what I meant by going out of your way to bend rules & circumstance to make things go the way you want.

I actually pointed out the berry thing, and there were two reactions; "Ewww, berries and meat?" and "won't berries make it heavier?" So they got a special order of pemmican with no berries.

Also, they failed the heal check (I even made it a DC10-ish one), because no one (not even the Cleric for some reason) had any ranks in Heal. They were quite magic-dependent for the first 1/3 of the game. And why should Cure Disease, a spell that's supposed to (apparently) kill viruses and bacteria and/or remove negative energy, replenish nutrients?

Bending the rules to make things go a certain way is the entire point of playing P&P RPGs instead of Final Fantasy. And metagaming strategies and using outside knowledge are my biggest pet peeves. After the amount of it these guys did, seeing them use both metagaming and outside knowledge to reach a totally wrong conclusion, and throw away their best stuff because of it, was too funny to correct.

Delwugor
2009-08-06, 02:33 PM
Hey, wasn't this thread about Charisma?

It was but discussions about charisma get dumped for discussions of strength. :smallbiggrin:

Mr.Moron
2009-08-06, 02:54 PM
Derailment:



But if you think getting a donkey to go where you want it to requires "no special skill," try picking any city slicker and any donkey, and put them together. Then watch the ensuing hilarity.


Getting an animal to do something is a DC 10 charisma check. Meaning that an average person not under stress can take 10. In-game this translates to something would be well known as a simple task just about anyone can do so long as they pay attention.

The average person (PCs included) is not a modern "City Slicker", they've all dealt with animals to some degree. Such that getting ones that are already trained to cooperate really is no special skill. At least not the the degree it has to be represented by taking points in a skill.

EDIT: On use rope:

Typing up a donkey is again, a trivial task. They can take 10 (again, in-game terms just taking the time to pay attention to a simple task). This results in a DC 20 escape artist check (a basic secured rope in-game terms).

NOTE: Anyone with a +2 Dex mod, 2 points in use rope can tie up the donkey such that it can't escape. In-game it's a simple enough task such that anyone with above average skill can "Ace It" with little effort.

It would have to actively struggle for a long period of time (Roll a 19) to get out. In-game it's obvious that donkeys aren't master escape artists when they've been tied up with by somebody half-competent using decent rope. A standard rope of normal quality (DC 23) is too strong for a donkey to break, even on a 20. Again in-game they'd know it was a half-decent rope and not something they're little pack animal can bust in normal circumstances.

There is no reason to call for excessive checks on all this.



Handle animal isn't just for mounts.


Handle Animal (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/handleAnimal.htm) isn't for mounts at all. There isn't even one use of Handel animal that applies to mounts, except training them to be mounts. Using mounts calls for the Ride skill.



Also, really, donkeys are far too cheap in D&D. In ancient times, a good donkey would be worth quite a lot. Enough that your average 1st level party might be able to afford one, if they pooled their resources.


1) These aren't "ancient times.". It's a low-technology world, vaguely resembling some point in the earths past but with flying lizards, a tangible afterlife and priests who can bring people back from the dead. Things are different.

2) They do cost quite a lot, PCs just have ungodly amounts of wealth. A first level fighter starts with 2 or 3 years pay for somebody toiling way with level 1 profession checks.



I actually pointed out the berry thing, and there were two reactions; "Ewww, berries and meat?" and "won't berries make it heavier?" So they got a special order of pemmican with no berries.


Then they should have been prompted as to if they wanted to buy dried fruit separately. Their characters would have some basic idea of their own nutritional needs, certainly the existance of scurvy. If you're going to hardball details like that, don't pick and choose.

Anyone with common knowledge (INT 10+) would know their gums are going to start to rot if caught without fruit or the like for a while. If they were prompted with that, then well okay. They're dumb as hell. However to me at least it really sounds like you were going out of your were to try and "Trap" them with that one, honestly.



Also, they failed the heal check (I even made it a DC10-ish one), because no one (not even the Cleric for some reason) had any ranks in Heal. They were quite magic-dependent for the first 1/3 of the game. And why should Cure Disease, a spell that's supposed to (apparently) kill viruses and bacteria and/or remove negative energy, replenish nutrients?


Remove Disease (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/removeDisease.htm)mentions nothing of viruses bacteria or negative energy. It simply says it Cures all Diseases and removes all parasites. Making scurvy arbitrarily not effected because it's caused by a nutritional deficiency instead of a pathogen is just mean spirited really.




Bending the rules to make things go a certain way is the entire point of playing P&P RPGs instead of Final Fantasy. And metagaming strategies and using outside knowledge are my biggest pet peeves. After the amount of it these guys did, seeing them use both metagaming and outside knowledge to reach a totally wrong conclusion, and throw away their best stuff because of it, was too funny to correct.

No. Bending the rules can help enhance the game, it isn't the point of it. If the point of the game was not following rules there wouldn't be any rules it'd just be freeform RP. Certainly the point is not bending the rules for the purposes of the DM enjoying is "Funny" at player expense.

Ninetail
2009-08-06, 02:57 PM
Eh, depends on the DM. I'd allow a higher charisma character much more leeway on their phrasing than a low charisma character in RP, to avoid something like pissing off nobility.

This.

Part of the problem with "dumping" Charisma is that many GMs will take what the player says in roleplay as what their character says. When this happens, there's no need for a reasonably eloquent player to not dump Charisma unless he needs it for a mechanical effect. There's also no reason for a player who is not so eloquent to take a high Charisma, unless he needs it for a mechanical effect.

If the GM actually roleplays NPCs according to the characters' Charisma scores, though, that all changes. NPCs will react to the latter player's halting and tentative speech as though it were flowery and courtly, and vice versa to the former player's.

There's nothing quite like the look on a powergamer's face when, after being warned, he creates a character with low Charisma and tries to serve as the party "face" anyway. After the first silver-tongued speech is narrated as "Joe steps forward and, stumbling over his words, attempts to convey your wishes for a greater reward to the duke. In so doing, he inadvertently manages to insult the duke's ancestry..." they tend to get the point.

(The character in question had Charisma 4, incidentally, using a variation of point-buy where abilities could be sold back for extra points. What made him think he could be party spokesman after being told during character creation about the way Charisma worked is beyond me.)

AstralFire
2009-08-06, 02:59 PM
As with most things on the subject, I believe this is one of those things that ultimately depends on the group. Some people like having that sort of reality check sprung on them, others don't. As a general rule, I assume that characters are competent if they've got relatively decent (total mods of -1 or higher) mental stats and will ask the players to double check things I think their characters would, from time to time.

I do think it's fair to let people know ahead of time about rules changes like Remove Disease, though.

Mr.Moron
2009-08-06, 03:07 PM
There's nothing quite like the look on a powergamer's face when, after being warned, he creates a character with low Charisma and tries to serve as the party "face" anyway.


No power gamer would do this. A power gamer by definition pimps out their character for what they're trying to do. If someone is trying to "Face" with charisma penalties and no social skills they're certainly not like any power gamer I've ever heard of.

A Diplomancer. Now that is a power-gaming face.

What you've described here is not a power gamer. It's some person who doesn't know what they're doing, at all.

AstralFire
2009-08-06, 03:08 PM
Actually, I have seen people do this. Most of them were the type that seriously thought Charisma == Comeliness, though, and as I was DM 90% of the time I saw it I smacked them down for this hard. They all certainly thought they were power gamers too, and... yeah, you're right, they fail at it hard. :smallamused:

I prefer the word 'munchkin' for such people. Or 'failure'.

RyanM
2009-08-06, 03:23 PM
I'm probably just explaining it poorly, because it wasn't the focus of the discussion, originally. I'm not normally going to take the time to explain something that exhaustively, if I don't think it's important to the discussion at hand. It was just an off-hand example of how to discourage something, if you think it's outside the bounds of the rules. And I really don't like metagaming.

More thorough description of the campaign and players:
The campaign in question was a "semi-realistic" one, and the usual D&D conventions that were thrown away were ones which didn't fit, while the house rulings were all things that did fit, and that the players agreed on beforehand. Several of which were changing the way that many of the spells and other magical effects work. All the food and water creation spells were replaced with a tier that started with Create Food I as a 5th level Cleric/6th level Mage spell, which would create one single meal. Then the next tier spell would feed 1 person for 1 day, and so on. Cure Disease was also replaced by tiers. IIRC, Cure Disease I was a 2nd or 3rd level Cleric spell, which, in gameplay terms, would kill bacteria and viruses, but not heal any damage they had caused. Cure Disease II was 2 levels higher and would heal only a limited amount of certain types of infection-inflicted damage (in gameplay terms, only certain attribute damage would be healed, and CON damage was not one of 'em). Totally healing a disease and restoring a character to normal was an 8th level spell.

Hit point healing magic got nerfed, and in a big way. All low-level Cure X Wounds spells, and low level potions, would take about an hour to kick in, so they were useless in combat. Instant-effect stuff was limited to high level spells and expensive potions.

Everything was agreed to before we started, though. There was to be a heavy emphasis on tactics, strategy, and ranged combat, essentially.

The players themselves were basically a group of munchkins who had recently had a game with a dyed-in-the-wool roleplayer, and who actually enjoyed the added flavor from roleplaying, so they wanted a game with a more realistic feel, that would encourage and reward roleplaying, good decision making, and lateral thinking, over stat tweaking. I'd award more XP for cleverly sneaking around an Orc band, or negotiating a truce, or something, than for slaughtering them all.

But for their first quest, the players backslid, and were constantly trying to find holes in the rules, and also making choices which are really bad in a "realistic" system, but just dandy in core D&D where you've got generic "food" and cure-all magic.

Dried fruit did come up, like I said. "Too heavy." That's the kind of decisions these guys were making, before the scurvy/radiation incident.

And aside from being funny, that did end up being the best thing for these guys, because after that, they did start thinking tactically, roleplaying properly, etc. They assumed I had done a really underhanded trick and made magic = radiation, and then had to start thinking outside the box to compensate, rather than grabbing the stuff with the highest +enchantment. Like I said, the end result was a very fun, entertaining, and challenging campaign.

And back on Charisma, I do believe that properly roleplaying it is the best way to handle it. But for rule-oriented people, there are some suggested rules.

Altima
2009-08-06, 11:09 PM
Also, really, donkeys are far too cheap in D&D. In ancient times, a good donkey would be worth quite a lot. Enough that your average 1st level party might be able to afford one, if they pooled their resources.



I don't think that's the case. I think it's more along the lines of the fact that, to the average citizen, the 'basic' adventurer coin--the gold piece--is just a lot of money. I'd see the commoners dealing more with coppers and silvers than gold pieces.

And, oh boy, do adventurers find tons of gold pieces. So it shouldn't be surprising that all the mundane things are relatively cheap. Most of an adventurer's money should be spent on magical items, anyway, which might as well be on another planet as it relates to Joe the Farmer.

Ashtagon
2009-08-07, 01:31 AM
Yep, adventurers are in a whole new economic world from the rest of the planet. In RL terms, each PC is as wealthy (as as attuned to conserving that wealth) as the average lottery winner.

In that context, shaving a gp or two of the cost of a new sword (or anything non-magical, really) is so trivial as to e a meaningless boost for Cha.

I still think making Cha bonuses grant fate points is the best use for a high Cha that also fits in with standard fantasy tropes.

Juggernaut1981
2009-08-08, 09:34 AM
This heads into my pet peev as a GM/DM...
The Dump-Stat Maverick. Examples: Int 6 Fighter/Barbarian/Cleric with a PhD in interplanar physics. Wis 6 Sorceror with the ability to spot illusions cast by Boccob. Cha 6 fighter who charms Ehlonna, Grazzt and Asmodeus before lunch.

The fun of crashing them back to earth is gold... even though it shouldn't be so fun.....
I will tell players to play their stats as rolled/bought/written. You dumped [stat] so RP it. I try to work on making NPCs react appropriately, etc.

When the GM/DM has a strong clear sense of the domains of the mental stats they can train their players to do better. It limits the metagaming (often ingame thwarting/failure/partial-fail) and makes better RPers.

Charisma is your sense of self. Your Ego is an aspect of Charisma. The PCs ability to identify 'others' and 'self' is the essence of Charisma; I know what you would want because I want it.

Wisdom is perception. How things 'should' be. How the universe works. What you want by how you act, say, etc.

Intelligence is learning. It can be disjoined from practice. It is not the 'instincts' of how the universe works, it is the 'knowledge' of how the world works.

Ninetail
2009-08-09, 08:38 PM
No power gamer would do this. A power gamer by definition pimps out their character for what they're trying to do. If someone is trying to "Face" with charisma penalties and no social skills they're certainly not like any power gamer I've ever heard of.

A Diplomancer. Now that is a power-gaming face.

What you've described here is not a power gamer. It's some person who doesn't know what they're doing, at all.

No, he was simply powergaming in other areas. Like I said, I don't have any idea why he tried to be the face, too, especially after he was told outright that it wouldn't work so well with a Charisma of 4.

I suspect that he was simply used to playing with GMs who dismissed Charisma and allowed the player's characters to get by on the player's own ability with words. I've known many GMs who do this with both Charisma and Intelligence. Most of them are surprised that these end up dump stats.

Kuma
2009-08-10, 01:12 PM
Diplomacy is huge in most of my campaigns, so charisma is needed by at least two party members on average. this is great, and i like the varying steps of the base moods

Eldan
2009-08-10, 01:36 PM
This.

Part of the problem with "dumping" Charisma is that many GMs will take what the player says in roleplay as what their character says.

Actually, I let the characters say word for word what the players said. The difference is the reaction by the NPCs:


PC with CHA6: *well-written dialogue*

Innkeeper: Oooh, la-di-daa. Would your majesty also like a bath, and maybe a seven-course meal? Listen, we don't want your kind here, get lost. All you stinkin' adventurers with your fine speeches make me sick...


PC with CHA 20: *same dialogue*

Innkeeper: Certainly, Sir. We'll have fresh sheets on your bed right away. I'll also put some soup on the fire, it's cold outside. Always nice to have some proper gents in town.

Lysander
2009-08-10, 01:54 PM
Actually, I let the characters say word for word what the players said. The difference is the reaction by the NPCs:


PC with CHA6: *well-written dialogue*

Innkeeper: Oooh, la-di-daa. Would your majesty also like a bath, and maybe a seven-course meal? Listen, we don't want your kind here, get lost. All you stinkin' adventurers with your fine speeches make me sick...


PC with CHA 20: *same dialogue*

Innkeeper: Certainly, Sir. We'll have fresh sheets on your bed right away. I'll also put some soup on the fire, it's cold outside. Always nice to have some proper gents in town.

The way I handle it, your player's appearance/identity plus what they say sets the DC. So if their dialogue is poor that ups the DC. If they say something eloquent that lowers the DC. Diplomacy only determines the roll.

Ironically this means that the people with the highest charisma can afford to be ruder and less pleasant if they want since their charisma can often overcome their dialogue. Which is exactly the way the real world works, for example high school popular kids acting like a jerk to everyone beneath them. And a very unpopular person will have to be as careful with their words as possible in order to have a chance of being listened to.

Eldan
2009-08-10, 01:56 PM
Oh, sure, that's also a factor. I'm just including both.

Godskook
2009-08-10, 02:34 PM
Here's the thing though. 93% of communication isn't the words you're saying, but other things, like body language or tone of voice(The movie Hitch has it at 90%, if you want a quick, but non-scholarly, reference source*). In pbp, even if you penalize someone to the fullest degree for poorly wording what they say, that should still only result in a +2 to any DC they're trying to beat.


*Hitch is *not* where I learned that from. It just happens that it also uses that statistic(or at least a rounded version of it).

Ninetail
2009-08-10, 02:48 PM
Actually, I let the characters say word for word what the players said. The difference is the reaction by the NPCs:


Eh, that can work. I'm not entirely comfortable with it, though; a player who is smart and eloquent will come up with things to say that a character with low Int and Cha never would. Someone with a Charisma as low as 6 wouldn't be able to make that flowery speech -- he'd be tripping over his tongue, or mumbling, or his tone of voice would make it sound like vicious sarcasm at the listener's expense, or something.

Fortunately, since the characters aren't speaking English in the first place, "lost in translation" accounts for a lot of leeway.



The way I handle it, your player's appearance/identity plus what they say sets the DC. So if their dialogue is poor that ups the DC. If they say something eloquent that lowers the DC. Diplomacy only determines the roll.

See, I think that's the wrong way to handle it -- it gives the eloquent player with the low-Cha character a low DC, while the high-Cha character with the ineloquent player suffers a higher DC. Sure, the difference in stat bonus might make up for it, but the high-Cha character shouldn't have a higher DC to start with.

Or to look at it another way, the guy with the high-Cha character should rate a bonus with any effort whatsoever, or maybe even with plain speech if his Cha is high enough. The guy with the low-Cha character should need to put out a lot more effort to get any bonus at all. That's the whole point of Charisma: if you have lots of it, you can influence people much more.

Lysander
2009-08-10, 02:54 PM
See, I think that's the wrong way to handle it -- it gives the eloquent player with the low-Cha character a low DC, while the high-Cha character with the ineloquent player suffers a higher DC. Sure, the difference in stat bonus might make up for it, but the high-Cha character shouldn't have a higher DC to start with.

Or to look at it another way, the guy with the high-Cha character should rate a bonus with any effort whatsoever, or maybe even with plain speech if his Cha is high enough. The guy with the low-Cha character should need to put out a lot more effort to get any bonus at all. That's the whole point of Charisma: if you have lots of it, you can influence people much more.

As part of delivery, I assume that the high cha character cleans up the player's grammatical errors and improves on phrasing. What's really important is the attempt at eloquence. Likewise, the I assume the eloquent player's pristine speech is reduced to stutters, poor grammar, and awkward pauses when delivered by a low CHA character.

A high CHA character who's actually trying will beat a low CHA character when it comes to diplomacy any time.

Eldan
2009-08-10, 03:01 PM
Right, seems I must correct myself again :smalltongue:
What I meant: the character says the same words as the player, or at least as close to it as possible. I still fee free to add a "as *fighterguy* stutters his speech, the barkeeper..." before the NPCs reaction.

Ninetail
2009-08-12, 04:23 AM
Ah... yeah, that's essentially what I do.

Some GMs like to reward effort when it comes to social interaction. I prefer to reward roleplaying foremost. If you've got a low Charisma, you don't get a lot of bonuses for coming up with a pretty speech, no matter how good it is. You do at least get roleplaying xp for being creatively non-persuasive, though.

aje8
2009-08-13, 10:17 PM
Wait.... but if Charisma determines what you guys say what do you about the guy with a great diplomacy check?

For example what if I play a diplomacer build..... but instead of the usual 18 charisma, I have 6.

So.... yes my modifier's lower by 6, but it's still pretty damn high.....do I studder over my speech and still somehow convince everybody?

Additionally, if that's what you guys do for Charisma, what about Intelligence? I've often played super-geius characters (18 int+2 racial+2 headband of int+2 level up increases=24 by level 8) and though I'd like to think myself smart, there's now ay I'm THAT smart. In fact, there's no way even the DM is that smart and he knows a ton about his world..

Ninetail
2009-08-17, 06:25 PM
So.... yes my modifier's lower by 6, but it's still pretty damn high.....do I studder over my speech and still somehow convince everybody?


Pretty much, yes.

A low Charisma with a lot of ranks in Diplomacy translates to a person you just don't instinctively like/trust... but who is, in certain situations, nevertheless persuasive. Might be an arrogant noble who clearly and swiftly sets out a logical proposal for mutual benefit, for instance.

Charisma is the impression. Diplomacy ranks (or Bluff, or Intimidate, etc.) are what your skill with words can add to that impression. Your target might not like you as a person, but that doesn't mean they won't go along with what you say, and if you do well enough, you can overcome their misgivings.



Additionally, if that's what you guys do for Charisma, what about Intelligence? I've often played super-geius characters (18 int+2 racial+2 headband of int+2 level up increases=24 by level 8) and though I'd like to think myself smart, there's now ay I'm THAT smart. In fact, there's no way even the DM is that smart and he knows a ton about his world..

Players with high Intelligence get lots of GM information and hints fed to them (sometimes with a check, sometimes not). Players with low Intelligence get few or no hints. Similarly for Wisdom, although it applies in different cases.