Willpower is Charisma, Not Wisdom [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Vadskye

2013-04-15, 06:35 PM

Let's consider the D&D ability cores for a moment. Strength, Constitution, and Intelligence have exactly one job. They represent a single concept, and that's all they mean. Dexterity represents more than one concept (agility and fine manual dexterity), but the concepts are sufficiently related that it seldom causes problems. These are good ability scores.

Wisdom and Charisma are more problematic. Wisdom represents no less than three different concepts: perceptiveness (Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, Survival checks), intuition and insightfulness ("wisdom"), and force of will (Will saves). On the other hand, Charisma has trouble representing anything at all.

According to the SRD, Charisma represents:

...force of personality, persuasiveness, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness. This ability represents actual strength of personality, not merely how one is perceived by others in a social setting
Unfortunately, this is highly problematic. "Persuasiveness" and "ability to lead" are not represented by ability scores! Those are skills that can be developed with practice. "Physical attractiveness" is no better. D&D disagrees with itself whether appearance is actually represented by Charisma or not, but it most certainly should not be. Appearance is not a mental stat; it is a physical characteristic. It makes no sense whatsoever that all sorcerers and paladins are unnaturally handsome and/or beautiful.

That raises an interesting point. Why are sorcerers Charisma-based? The answer lies in the true meaning of Charisma: force of personality. This is the well from which the sorcerer draws her powers. It is from the force of a Paladin's belief in his god that he derives his divine grace. It is from, in other words, his force of will. Force of personality is force of will. This is the only way Charisma makes sense.

We all have an intuitive conception of how to play a typical character with high Int and low Wis (absent-minded professor), or high Wis and low Int (insightful simpleton). But I see all sorts of disagreement about what it means when a character has high or low Charisma. The problem is that Charisma was defined incorrectly in 3rd edition to begin with, and this has caused all sorts of problems since then.

This can be fixed readily, though. Charisma, not Wisdom, should add to Will saves. This may necessitate some balance tweaks (Dwarves should no longer have penalties to Charisma; Dex would be more appropriate), but that is a small price to pay for finally having ability scores that make sense.

ErrantX

2013-04-15, 06:41 PM

I see where you're going with this. I don't disagree at all, I think that's actually a great ruling given the rules as written all but spells it out then does something completely different. Also gives sorcerers and bards another leg up too. Paladins already have insane saves, but at that point you may want to change their Divine Grace to Wisdom modifier instead.

-X

erikun

2013-04-15, 07:08 PM

Well.

The first point I note is that you say that "persuasiveness" is not represented by an ability score, because it is a skill (and, presumably, because skill ranks matter more than abilit modifiers). However, you have no problem with Wisdom including "perceptiveness", despite all perception rolls being skills.

The second, much more minor point of note, is that "ability to lead" generally refers to the Leadership feat (and similar abilities) which certainly have Charisma as a really big factor. (Level being the other.)

Thirdly, your observation has actually been made before. :smalltongue: The general definition of Charisma really does make it the force of willpower, which would be the determining factor in Will saves - far more than perception or insightfulness. The reason it wasn't originally done that way is because Charisma in older D&D games was much more about social interaction, luck (sometimes), or divine blessing. The whole "force of personality" came about as an excuse for Sorcerer spellcasting (in my view) and just expanded from there, to the point where it makes little sense to not to base Will saves on Charisma.

How would this change the game? Probably not too much. Paladins and other +CHA to saves classes are a bit better, as are CHA casters. Clerics and divine casters are no longer so highly resistant to Will save attacks, which may seem odd.

Vadskye

2013-04-15, 07:35 PM

The first point I note is that you say that "persuasiveness" is not represented by an ability score, because it is a skill (and, presumably, because skill ranks matter more than abilit modifiers). However, you have no problem with Wisdom including "perceptiveness", despite all perception rolls being skills.
True. This was poorly stated. Persasiveness is just a natural byproduct of "force of personality"; if you have a strong personality, you are inherently more persuasive. It doesn't make sense to hold up persuasiveness as being the fundamental tenet of Charisma when that is really just a side effect of Charisma's true nature. Likewise, once Wisdom has the nonsense about willpower removed, it becomes clear that all of Wisdom's purview falls under the concept of "insight". If you have insight, you are wise, and you perceive things more clearly. It could reasonably be renamed Perception, as many other systems have done, without problems (though I don't propose that).

The second, much more minor point of note, is that "ability to lead" generally refers to the Leadership feat (and similar abilities) which certainly have Charisma as a really big factor. (Level being the other.)
I'd consider that also a natural byproduct of force of personality/will. People follow confidence.

Thirdly, your observation has actually been made before. :smalltongue:
Nooooo! I thought I was a special snowflake.

The general definition ofu Charisma really does make it the force of willpower, which would be the determining factor in Will saves - far more than perception or insightfulness. The reason it wasn't originally done that way is because Charisma in older D&D games was much more about social interaction, luck (sometimes), or divine blessing. The whole "force of personality" came about as an excuse for Sorcerer spellcasting (in my view) and just expanded from there, to the point where it makes little sense to not to base Will saves on Charisma.

Really? I had thought Charisma had always included the concept of force of personality. I had suspected that the Wisdom=willpower concept originally derived from the fact that the iconic Wisdom classes (clerics, monks) also thematically have a lot of willpower. Before 3rd, since there was no such thing as a "will save" to recognize that it was really the class causing the willpower, Wisdom became associated with characters with high willpower. Perhaps not, though.

How would this change the game? Probably not too much. Paladins and other +CHA to saves classes are a bit better, as are CHA casters. Clerics and divine casters are no longer so highly resistant to Will save attacks, which may seem odd.

By itself, it is fairly insignificant (though it does mean that sorcerers have absolutely amazing will saves). However, this change does two things. First, it is just more intuitive, and the value of that shouldn't be discounted. Second, it means that you can directly tie each save type to a secondary stat with little effort. Strength should help Fort (but not as much as Constitution), Wisdom should help Reflex (but not as much as Dexterity), and Intelligence should help Will (but not as much as Charisma). That change is needed to compensate for some other changes my system made... and we can keep going deeper into the rabbit hole.

JusticeZero

2013-04-15, 11:28 PM

Completely agree. That said, that ruling leads one a bit further down the rabbit hole than just saves. It's all stuff that NEEDS TO HAPPEN, though.

Just to Browse

2013-04-16, 12:04 AM

Now I dump Wisdom for my builds!

Yitzi

2013-04-16, 12:40 PM

The OP is absolutely correct for willpower-based saves, but some "will" saves (namely those against charm effects and illusions) are really about the ability to resist magical trickery more than willpower and so would make more sense as WIS-based. Of course, that's not enough to make the whole save category be WIS-based; a better approach would be to split them off as a separate type of "insight" save, which would be WIS-based.

Vadskye

2013-04-16, 12:46 PM

Just to Browse: Hopefully, the fact that having a low Wisdom has definite RP requirements will mitigate that. (Also, there are other mechanisms in my system to mitigate the dump-stat problem, but that's a whole separate discussion).

Yitzi, I think the only way to effectively implement that concept would be to move away from entire Fort/Ref/Will saving throw system. While that is certainly a viable approach (see: 5e), that's also a massive change to the structure of the game. I think it is easier to just say that fluff illusions and charm effects so they actually are resisted by willpower. Specifically, they are attempts to control the perceptions of the mind. If they succeed, you can't perceive your way out of them, because they control what you can perceive; the only way to resist them is to refuse to let your mind be controlled in any way, which is willpower-based.

Yitzi

2013-04-16, 01:10 PM

Now I dump Wisdom for my builds!

At least that has a cost in terms of spot/listen checks.

Draz74

2013-04-16, 06:48 PM

Let's consider the D&D ability cores for a moment. Strength, Constitution, and Intelligence have exactly one job. They represent a single concept, and that's all they mean.
Nope.

Strength is a conflation of brawniness, non-fine muscle coordination (e.g. melee attacks), agility when it relates to climbing or jumping, and stamina.

Constitution is a conflation of immune system, stamina, and pain threshold.

Intelligence is a conflation of ability to comprehend complexity, cerebral memory, applied memory, and quick-thinking cleverness.

The first point I note is that you say that "persuasiveness" is not represented by an ability score, because it is a skill (and, presumably, because skill ranks matter more than abilit modifiers). However, you have no problem with Wisdom including "perceptiveness", despite all perception rolls being skills.
Yup. This is some of the thought process I went through before deciding that the game doesn't really need ability scores at all. :smallsmile:

Thirdly, your observation has actually been made before. :smalltongue:

Nooooo! I thought I was a special snowflake.
Haha. Not sure if this response was a joke, but indeed, erikun is correct that this has been discussed in very similar terms before. Not that that means it shouldn't be discussed more.

How would this change the game? Probably not too much. Paladins and other +CHA to saves classes are a bit better, as are CHA casters. Clerics and divine casters are no longer so highly resistant to Will save attacks, which may seem odd.
Well, at this point, it needs to be determined whether "Wisdom" is going to keep its moniker, in which case its connection to awareness skills is questionable. If it does stay "Wisdom," then it should probably continue to be the driving stat of divine casting, which, yes, will make Clerics weaker in Will Saves. On the other hand, if "Wisdom" stays, I would favor the suggestion to move Paladin's save boosts from Charisma to Wisdom.

Alternatively, if Wisdom is renamed something like "Perception," "Awareness," or "Cunning," to make its connection to alertness skills clearer, then divine casting should be moved to a Charisma base anyway. In which case the Cleric gets to keep his mighty willpower.

Really? I had thought Charisma had always included the concept of force of personality.
Nope. Not before 3e. Not according to the scores' in-English descriptions.

By itself, it is fairly insignificant (though it does mean that sorcerers have absolutely amazing will saves).
Actually, if Will saves change to Charisma, then good/poor Will save progressions should be re-evaluated for a lot of classes. Rangers' poor Will saves never really made sense to me with their archetype, and they're definitely not Charismatic types, so I'd say they should get their Will Save boosted at this point. (Which of course leads to other possible problems, since that leaves them as one of the few classes with all good saves.) Meanwhile, the Charisma-based casters (Sorcerer, Bard, Binder, Warlock ...) ... I dunno. It depends how you view each of them, really. A "spoony" Bard in this system should probably drop to a lower Will Save progression, but a "wise Celtic" type Bard shouldn't.

Strength should help Fort (but not as much as Constitution), Wisdom should help Reflex (but not as much as Dexterity), and Intelligence should help Will (but not as much as Charisma). That change is needed to compensate for some other changes my system made... and we can keep going deeper into the rabbit hole.
Now this, although I don't entirely love it, is a fresh and original setup suggestion, and worthy of more consideration ...

The OP is absolutely correct for willpower-based saves, but some "will" saves (namely those against charm effects and illusions) are really about the ability to resist magical trickery more than willpower and so would make more sense as WIS-based. Of course, that's not enough to make the whole save category be WIS-based; a better approach would be to split them off as a separate type of "insight" save, which would be WIS-based.
Heh, Yitzi, this is starting to sound suspiciously like D&D Next ... :smallwink:

Alternatively, if you don't want to open the can of worms of "a separate Save for each ability score," like D&D Next does, then you could just have illusions and possibly even charm effects combatted, not by Saves at all, but by Wisdom-based skills (Spot or Listen for illusions, Sense Motive for charms).

Just to Browse: Hopefully, the fact that having a low Wisdom has definite RP requirements will mitigate that.
Nah. If this wasn't enough to keep people from dumping Charisma, it won't be enough to keep them from dumping Wisdom either.

Now I dump Wisdom for my builds!
This is indeed a concern. But people have come up with a few interesting ideas to keep Wisdom more valuable. Initiative rolls are the obvious one (Dexterity is plenty strong without them). Generally, renaming Wisdom as "Cunning" or somesuch tends to help with thinking of universally-valued uses for it. (But makes it harder to tie it to specific magic systems.)

On a side note, if the Concentration skill still exists at all (instead of just being subsumed by Will Saves), it should be tied to the "willpower" ability score, not to Constitution.

Just to Browse

2013-04-16, 08:25 PM

Nope. Not before 3e. Not according to the scores' in-English descriptions.False. The PHB states this very explicitly.

Also, saves should totally be removed. If attributes advanced faster by level (like by class) and saves were made based on modifiers, I would be super happy.

Eurus

2013-04-16, 08:31 PM

I never thought about Wisdom to Initiative. That's actually a pretty neat solution, for balancing out the Cha-to-Will shift. I might try this out at some point.

Xuldarinar

2013-04-16, 09:58 PM

I find the concept behind this change interesting, but I have to disagree.

No matter how charismatic an individual is, they can be manipulated. Force of Will does not necessarily equal Strength of will.

Now, we can just take directly from D&D 4e.

Fortitude: Strength or Constitution
Reflex: Dexterity or Intellect
Will: Wisdom or Charisma

Just to Browse

2013-04-16, 10:34 PM

Tying stats like that makes the game weird. Tanky characters (Str and Con) actually become weaker than more glass-cannon-esque characters (Str and Dex) because they get fewer bonuses of saves.

Vadskye

2013-04-16, 11:56 PM

Nope.

Strength is a conflation of brawniness, non-fine muscle coordination (e.g. melee attacks), agility when it relates to climbing or jumping, and stamina.

Constitution is a conflation of immune system, stamina, and pain threshold.

Intelligence is a conflation of ability to comprehend complexity, cerebral memory, applied memory, and quick-thinking cleverness.
I think you can subdivide the ability scores into multiple related areas, but none of those are as unrelated as "perception" is to "willpower". It is true that I overstated my case when I said that those ability scores actually represented only a single concept, though. It would be more accurate to say that they represent concepts which have a much stronger relationship to each other than Wisdom does.

Yup. This is some of the thought process I went through before deciding that the game doesn't really need ability scores at all. :smallsmile:
Well, that's a whole different bushel of apples! I am quite fond of ability scores myself, but I hope that works well for you.

Haha. Not sure if this response was a joke, but indeed, erikun is correct that this has been discussed in very similar terms before. Not that that means it shouldn't be discussed more.
Mostly self-mocking. I had never seen the idea before, but I shouldn't be surprised that it isn't wholly original.

Well, at this point, it needs to be determined whether "Wisdom" is going to keep its moniker, in which case its connection to awareness skills is questionable. If it does stay "Wisdom," then it should probably continue to be the driving stat of divine casting, which, yes, will make Clerics weaker in Will Saves. On the other hand, if "Wisdom" stays, I would favor the suggestion to move Paladin's save boosts from Charisma to Wisdom.

Alternatively, if Wisdom is renamed something like "Perception," "Awareness," or "Cunning," to make its connection to alertness skills clearer, then divine casting should be moved to a Charisma base anyway. In which case the Cleric gets to keep his mighty willpower.
Though Wisdom could change its name to Perception or Insight without difficulty, I will keep it as Wisdom for tradition's sake, and because I think "wisdom" as a concept is fairly closely related to perception and insight. Clerics will be weaker on Will, true. However, clerics are supposed to be moderately charismatic for fluff and Turn Undead - with will saves as an added incentive, I suspect that charismatic clerics will become more common, and the typical Will save will not decrease too much. Paladins are still an unsolved issue, but I don't think Paladins should be Wisdom-based at all. Paladins are pure unwavering belief in their justice and their deity, which is Charisma all the way. But double-counting Charisma to Will saves feels strange to me. I am open to suggestions, honestly.

Nope. Not before 3e. Not according to the scores' in-English descriptions.
There seems to be some disagreement, so I will let this be, but I am curious.

Actually, if Will saves change to Charisma, then good/poor Will save progressions should be re-evaluated for a lot of classes. Rangers' poor Will saves never really made sense to me with their archetype, and they're definitely not Charismatic types, so I'd say they should get their Will Save boosted at this point. (Which of course leads to other possible problems, since that leaves them as one of the few classes with all good saves.) Meanwhile, the Charisma-based casters (Sorcerer, Bard, Binder, Warlock ...) ... I dunno. It depends how you view each of them, really. A "spoony" Bard in this system should probably drop to a lower Will Save progression, but a "wise Celtic" type Bard shouldn't.
Rangers are a bit of a puzzle to me. I think I will leave them with low Will saves; it is hard to imagine a ranger without Fort and Reflex, but Will definitely seems optional to me. It depends on your perception of the ranger, I suppose. Even with my changes, I don't think they would be overpowered with all good saves - but it makes them unnecessarily good as a splash class.

Bards might lose good Will saves. I don't think that the humble bard should have the highest willpower this side of a sorcerer, and they never struck me as being all that willful. Giving them Will saves just feels like an artifact of the fact that all casters are given good Will saves. With Cha to Will, bards can get by okay with Reflex only.

Now this, although I don't entirely love it, is a fresh and original setup suggestion, and worthy of more consideration ...
Glad to hear it! I actually stumbled onto the Cha to Will saves idea while trying to implement this "all ability cores matter" system. I really think this is a good idea.

Alternatively, if you don't want to open the can of worms of "a separate Save for each ability score," like D&D Next does, then you could just have illusions and possibly even charm effects combatted, not by Saves at all, but by Wisdom-based skills (Spot or Listen for illusions, Sense Motive for charms).
I actually like Spot/Listen as ways to combat illusions (at least non-shadow-based illusions). That's really flavorful, and makes them more useful. Sense Motive I don't like, though. Charms can stay willpower-based in my book.

Nah. If this wasn't enough to keep people from dumping Charisma, it won't be enough to keep them from dumping Wisdom either.
I think there are two key differences. First, half Wis to Reflex saves means that no stat is actually a dump stat. Second, Wisdom has a much better defined impact on a player's personality than Charisma did. I don't think there will ever be a dump stat as bad as Charisma has been. Also, Wisdom to initiative (in addition to Dexterity) is actually already a part of my system.

On a side note, if the Concentration skill still exists at all (instead of just being subksumed by Will Saves), it should be tied to the "willpower" ability score, not to Constitution.
Interesting. I am not sure I buy that - but I am not sure it should be Constitution-based either. Concentration is a problem I am still working on, honestly.

Tying stats like that makes the game weird. Tanky characters (Str and Con) actually become weaker than more glass-cannon-esque characters (Str and Dex) because they get fewer bonuses of saves.

This is my core problem with 4e's stat setup. I use Con and 1/2 Str to Fort, Dex and 1/2 Wis to Reflex, and Cha and 1/2 Int to Will. That way, someone who is both strong and tough is really, really tough. 4e gives no benefit whatsoever, which as you pointed out, makes no sense.

Just to Browse

2013-04-17, 12:34 AM

1/2 Str to Fort saves (and etc.) accomplishes two things:
The big balls of strength and constitution that are really common in D&D will have fort saves even higher than before, making them pretty much untouchable in that area.
Str/Con, Dex/Wis, and Int/Cha builds become less tenable while any combination between them becomes more likely, just like in 4e. In addition, because now it's numerically obvious that Strength, Wis, and Int are inferior to Constitution, Charisma, and Dexterity, many builds will put Wis and Int last.
Finally, players will feel penalized for generalizing (having a lower net save bonus from stats) or for focusing (taking negatives to saves regardless of build choice).

I really think it hurts the game. You knock certain monsters out into the stratosphere as far as immunity goes, attribute arrays become most likely more homogenous, and players feel like they're penalized for whatever they do.

LordErebus12

2013-04-17, 12:48 AM

At least that has a cost in terms of spot/listen checks.

and the pure gold of every character suddenly becoming ditzy characters as they dump it.

Nooooo! I thought I was a special snowflake.

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbb05rnuS61qkvaf7.gif

-------------------------------------------------

@Vadskye

I got to give you props, I like this rule change for many reasons.

1/2 Str to Fort saves (and etc.) accomplishes two things:
The big balls of strength and constitution that are really common in D&D will have fort saves even higher than before, making them pretty much untouchable in that area.
Str/Con, Dex/Wis, and Int/Cha builds become less tenable while any combination between them becomes more likely, just like in 4e. In addition, because now it's numerically obvious that Strength, Wis, and Int are inferior to Constitution, Charisma, and Dexterity, many builds will put Wis and Int last.
Finally, players will feel penalized for generalizing (having a lower net save bonus from stats) or for focusing (taking negatives to saves regardless of build choice).

I really think it hurts the game. You knock certain monsters out into the stratosphere as far as immunity goes, attribute arrays become most likely more homogenous, and players feel like they're penalized for whatever they do.

Valid points.

You might make a general rule, if charisma is lower than 9, raise it to 9. if higher than 9, switch charisma's score with wisdom's score.

Draz74

2013-04-17, 01:20 AM

False. The PHB states this very explicitly.

There seems to be some disagreement, so I will let this be, but I am curious.

The Charisma (Cha) score measures a character's persuasiveness, personal magnetism, and ability to lead. It is not a reflection of physical attractiveness, although attractiveness certainly plays a role.
I see nothing in this description about "force of personality," or willpower, or anything else unrelated to social interactions.

Tying stats like that makes the game weird. Tanky characters (Str and Con) actually become weaker than more glass-cannon-esque characters (Str and Dex) because they get fewer bonuses of saves.
Yep, actually a significant plague to a number of classes in Legend. I wasn't a big fan of the 4e method of stats-to-saves in the first place, but I become more opposed to it the more I build Legend characters.

I think you can subdivide the ability scores into multiple related areas, but none of those are as unrelated as "perception" is to "willpower". It is true that I overstated my case when I said that those ability scores actually represented only a single concept, though. It would be more accurate to say that they represent concepts which have a much stronger relationship to each other than Wisdom does.
Agreed: you were overstating your case, but the disconnect is bigger for Wisdom than it was for Str/Con/Int.

Well, that's a whole different bushel of apples! I am quite fond of ability scores myself, but I hope that works well for you.
Thanks. Initially I was rather sad about giving them up, but once I got used to it, I like it more and more. But for those who miss them, I'm still thinking about an optional add-on to my rules that would let people evoke some of the feeling of the classic six ability scores ...

Though Wisdom could change its name to Perception or Insight without difficulty, I will keep it as Wisdom for tradition's sake, and because I think "wisdom" as a concept is fairly closely related to perception and insight.
Hmmm, Insight is a good name if you want to keep the connection to divine magic, but also want to emphasize the connection to Spot/Listen skills. ("Wisdom" doesn't have a lot to do with physical awareness, in my book.)

Rangers are a bit of a puzzle to me. I think I will leave them with low Will saves; it is hard to imagine a ranger without Fort and Reflex, but Will definitely seems optional to me. It depends on your perception of the ranger, I suppose. Even with my changes, I don't think they would be overpowered with all good saves - but it makes them unnecessarily good as a splash class.
Yeah, making them too dippable was my hesitancy about all good saves, too.

Back in 2e, Constitution was actually arguably the Ranger's main stat (officially its prime requisites were STR/CON/WIS). CON was definitely more important to them than DEX. (This is the reason the 3e Ranger got Endurance as a bonus feat: to be reminiscent of their old flavor, even though DEX and INT were suddenly jumping up on their priority list.) If you re-emphasized CON as a key stat for Rangers, I think you could actually get away with dropping Fortitude to the lower progression.

But I don't think you're looking for changes that radical.

Bards might lose good Will saves. I don't think that the humble bard should have the highest willpower this side of a sorcerer, and they never struck me as being all that willful. Giving them Will saves just feels like an artifact of the fact that all casters are given good Will saves. With Cha to Will, bards can get by okay with Reflex only.
Like I said before, it depends how you see the Bard. Reading about Taliesin tends to leave me with little doubt that Bards should have the best Will saves in the game. But D&D has kinda given up on Taliesin being its Bard model ever since the beginning of 2e. (The 1e Bard, now that was a proper Celtic archetype ...)

Glad to hear it! I actually stumbled onto the Cha to Will saves idea while trying to implement this "all ability cores matter" system. I really think this is a good idea.
[snip]
This is my core problem with 4e's stat setup. I use Con and 1/2 Str to Fort, Dex and 1/2 Wis to Reflex, and Cha and 1/2 Int to Will. That way, someone who is both strong and tough is really, really tough. 4e gives no benefit whatsoever, which as you pointed out, makes no sense.
It will make saves higher in general. Can't say that displeases me.

Do penalties get halved, as well? And keep in mind that, without also implementing your doubling of all ability modifiers, a character will have to have a STR/INT/WIS score of 14+ in order to actually see any effect from this rule.

I think there are two key differences. First, half Wis to Reflex saves means that no stat is actually a dump stat. Second, Wisdom has a much better defined impact on a player's personality than Charisma did.
Disagree on both counts. Half WIS to Reflex won't stop anyone from dumping WIS. Even adding it to Initiative might not, either.

And I'm not sure what well-defined impact on personality you think Wisdom has. Consider the difference in personalities between a high-WIS Cleric and a high-WIS Ranger (both stereotypical).

1/2 Str to Fort saves (and etc.) accomplishes two things:
[list] The big balls of strength and constitution that are really common in D&D will have fort saves even higher than before, making them pretty much untouchable in that area.
As I alluded to before ... boosting saves in general isn't exactly a horrible idea in 3e. Save DCs are too high in general.

Str/Con, Dex/Wis, and Int/Cha builds become less tenable while any combination between them becomes more likely, just like in 4e. In addition, because now it's numerically obvious that Strength, Wis, and Int are inferior to Constitution, Charisma, and Dexterity, many builds will put Wis and Int last.
I don't follow. It sounds like you're saying giving STR a (half) effect on Fortitude save is weaker than giving it no effect on Fortitude at all. :smallconfused:

Finally, players will feel penalized for generalizing (having a lower net save bonus from stats) or for focusing (taking negatives to saves regardless of build choice).
Again ... how will they feel that way moreso than they already do, when STR/INT have no effect on Saves? He's not talking about taking away any of the non-Save benefits that these stats already confer; only adding to their uses.

The fact that he's allowing the stat bonuses to saves to stack makes this completely incomparable with the 4e/Legend setup.

Just to Browse

2013-04-17, 02:29 AM

I see nothing in this description about "force of personality," or willpower, or anything else unrelated to social interactions.:smallannoyed: I don't see any reason why the 2e PHB should be quoted over the 3.5 PHB considering this is a discussion of 3.5 mechanics. Look it up the 3.5 PHB.

EDIT: The SRD even covers it. Come on, man.

As I alluded to before ... boosting saves in general isn't exactly a horrible idea in 3e. Save DCs are too high in general.That's not the kind of bonus I'm talking about. I'm talking about monsters that go from large to huge getting +8 Str, +4 Con and netting +4 to Fort saves from that, except at high levels where it's more like +30 Str and +10 Con and the fort save bonus is like +10 which makes any kind of fortitude spell pointless against that creature.

I don't follow. It sounds like you're saying giving STR a (half) effect on Fortitude save is weaker than giving it no effect on Fortitude at all. :smallconfused:It's not weaker that it previously was, but it is obviously weaker than Dexterity or Charisma, because those are the primary save stats. If a player builds their character, the obvious numerical superiority of Dexterity and Charisma will cause an increase in Dex/Cha being favored over Strength. And that will homogenize characters, which I consider detrimental.

Heck, this doesn't actually help saves get boosted because even slightly dumped stats result in a penalty. Characters will feel the pain, but monsters will get the buff.

Again ... how will they feel that way moreso than they already do, when STR/INT have no effect on Saves? He's not talking about taking away any of the non-Save benefits that these stats already confer; only adding to their uses.Because now players see it. People don't like having to write down that -1 from their 9 Str because it makes them feel bad that their character is worse off, despite the fact that a -1 is so minor that you can't even tell the difference on a night when you rolled well versus poorly.

The fact that he's allowing the stat bonuses to saves to stack makes this completely incomparable with the 4e/Legend setup.I really disagree with you. This does very minor things to balance the game positively, but I think it brings a much harder psychological toll. The more minuses on my character sheet, the sadder I get. The more things I have to mentally juggle when I write a character, the more frustrated I get. A houserule should not cause me to be sadder and more frustrated.

TuggyNE

2013-04-17, 02:53 AM

:smallannoyed: I don't see any reason why the 2e PHB should be quoted over the 3.5 PHB considering this is a discussion of 3.5 mechanics. Look it up the 3.5 PHB.

EDIT: The SRD even covers it. Come on, man.

Because they were specifically talking about the take previous editions had had on it, and the way 3.x introduced a new focus on Cha as force of personality.

Ashtagon

2013-04-17, 02:59 AM

...

Strong Disagree.

Wisdom represents insight most centrally. Insight into the physical world, as demonstrated by your ability to analyse the data your senses present to you. Insight into modes of thought and how others act and react, as shown by Sense Motive. Insight into the divine mind, as shown by just about every divine casting class. And insight into your own mind and how it normally works, to better detect when it is being manipulated (Sense Motive again, and also Will saves). If Wisdom were likened to a physical ability, it would be Constitution.

Charisma is your ability to impose your will on the world. It is dynamic, interactive, and all about action and not reaction. That's why it makes sense for social interaction skills where you are trying to get someone else to do something, and UMD, where you are trying to get something to do something. Being dynamic, it makes little sense for a defensive saving throw check. If Charisma were likened to a physical ability, it would be Strength.

Yitzi

2013-04-17, 06:26 AM

Strong Disagree.

Wisdom represents insight most centrally. Insight into the physical world, as demonstrated by your ability to analyse the data your senses present to you. Insight into modes of thought and how others act and react, as shown by Sense Motive. Insight into the divine mind, as shown by just about every divine casting class. And insight into your own mind and how it normally works, to better detect when it is being manipulated (Sense Motive again, and also Will saves).

But when someone casts Dominate Person or Hold Person on you, they're not trying to manipulate your mind without you realizing; understanding that they're trying to manipulate you just means you know what they're doing, not that they can't do it. For that, you need the ability to impose your will on your own mind...which seems more CHA-like than WIS-like.

If Charisma were likened to a physical ability, it would be Strength.

Very good analogy. And what ability score do you use to resist when someone attempts to move you against your will via something like a Bull Rush?

Ashtagon

2013-04-17, 07:12 AM

But when someone casts Dominate Person or Hold Person on you, they're not trying to manipulate your mind without you realizing; understanding that they're trying to manipulate you just means you know what they're doing, not that they can't do it. For that, you need the ability to impose your will on your own mind...which seems more CHA-like than WIS-like.

I said charisma is primarily outward-focused while Wisdom is primarily inward-focused, and further than Wisdom is more passive than Charisma. Passive does NOT mean unconscious, nor does it mean unaware.

Yitzi

2013-04-17, 08:48 AM

I said charisma is primarily outward-focused while Wisdom is primarily inward-focused, and further than Wisdom is more passive than Charisma. Passive does NOT mean unconscious, nor does it mean unaware.

However, Wisdom is still more about knowing than about causing.

Ashtagon

2013-04-17, 08:53 AM

However, Wisdom is still more about knowing than about causing.

So by knowing your own mind, you can stop it from being changed against your will.

Yitzi

2013-04-17, 09:18 AM

So by knowing your own mind, you can stop it from being changed against your will.

Consider the physical analogy of that statement: "By knowing where you stand, you can stop yourself from being moved against your will." That doesn't really seem to be true...

Now, what is true is that by knowing your own mind, you can stop it from being changed against your will by trickery. But most Will save effects don't work through trickery; charm and illusion spells are the only exceptions I can think of.

Vadskye

2013-04-17, 09:57 AM

First, let me say that I'm really glad this is attracting interest. I am paying close attention to the arguments here, and I've changed elements of my system before when faced with near-unanimous disagreement. (My players reacted poorly to my attempts to redefine Enchantment to include spells like Magic Weapon.) So thank you for taking the time and effort to explain your views! Now then...

Responses to Just to Browse:

1/2 Str to Fort saves (and etc.) accomplishes two things:
The big balls of strength and constitution that are really common in D&D will have fort saves even higher than before, making them pretty much untouchable in that area.
I'm trying to bring monster design back down to earth on this front (brown bears have no reason to have a 27 Str, and size increase does not merit +8 Str...). However, I'm not sure that "really strong and really tough monsters are nigh-immune to Fort saves" is inherently a problem. I think it is both fair and intuitive that a hill giant or troll will have an absolutely phenomenal Fort save. Does this make them effectively immune to level-appropriate Fort saves? Yes, it probably does. But they should be. The mage who tries to cast Poison or Stinking Cloud on a hill giant can get dunked for his stupidity. This is less of problem with PCs, since their stats are typically much less stratospheric.

Str/Con, Dex/Wis, and Int/Cha builds become less tenable while any combination between them becomes more likely, just like in 4e.
I intentionally avoided going the full 4e route for precisely this reason. I don't like the anti-synergy between having similar abilities present in that system. And my system still makes the problem better. Int/Cha builds never used to have any abilities grant saving throws. They will be much more common now than they used to be. Dex/Wis gets worse than before, but it is not like they will disappear by any stretch of the imagination. Rangers and monks still exist, after all. And you will never get rid of Str/Con characters. The abilities have many other interactions and synergies than what is represented by saving throws.

In addition, because now it's numerically obvious that Strength, Wis, and Int are inferior to Constitution, Charisma, and Dexterity, many builds will put Wis and Int last.
My system makes this problem actively better than it is with the current system. With the current system, three stats are completely useless for saves! If it helps, my intention is to have feats (at least for Wis and Int... not sure about Str) that flip the order of the stats, so Int would be the primary Will save while Cha would be the secondary. It will cost a feat because it is not normal, but I can definitely imagine it being justifiable for individual characters with a particular mindset or background.
This is getting a bit far afield, but my system has other ways of dealing with this problem, too; each ability score is used to grant skill points for skills based on that ability. So no stat is a full dump stat.

Finally, players will feel penalized for generalizing (having a lower net save bonus from stats) or for focusing (taking negatives to saves regardless of build choice).

I really think it hurts the game. You knock certain monsters out into the stratosphere as far as immunity goes, attribute arrays become most likely more homogenous, and players feel like they're penalized for whatever they do.[/QUOTE]
I just don't see this homogeneity happening. As evidence for this, I present... 3rd edition. Dex/Wis/Con have been the god-stats of saving throws since its inception, to a much greater degree than this system. Are all builds Dex/Wis/Con based? Absolutely not! Wizards and sorcerers are no less masterful and popular for their reliance on stats that don't contribute to saves. It just doesn't happen.

Responses to Lord Erebus:

I got to give you props, I like this rule change for many reasons.
Glad to hear it, thanks!

You might make a general rule, if charisma is lower than 9, raise it to 9. if higher than 9, switch charisma's score with wisdom's score.
If someone is actually that uncharismatic, I'm okay with giving them a terrible Will save. For specific monsters, such as zombies, lack of Charisma doesn't accurately represent what is happening with their Will (Will saves on undead are a bit kooky anyway), and that can be adjusted on a case-by-case basis.

Responses to Draz:

I see nothing in this description about "force of personality," or willpower, or anything else unrelated to social interactions.
Fair enough. I found myself an old 2e PHB myself for this, and for comparison, here's the Wisdom block:

Wisdom describes a composite of the character's enlightenment, judgement, guile, willpower, common sense, and intuition.
What a mess of unrelated concepts. Guile? Really? So I will change my argument from "I am upholding the traditions of D&D ability scores" to "I am actively not trying to uphold the traditions of D&D ability scores because they are dumb".

Hmmm, Insight is a good name if you want to keep the connection to divine magic, but also want to emphasize the connection to Spot/Listen skills. ("Wisdom" doesn't have a lot to do with physical awareness, in my book.)
Insight is probably the best name that isn't Wisdom. I think I'll gauge reaction before actually changing it, though. Changed names can be disorienting.

Back in 2e, Constitution was actually arguably the Ranger's main stat (officially its prime requisites were STR/CON/WIS). CON was definitely more important to them than DEX. (This is the reason the 3e Ranger got Endurance as a bonus feat: to be reminiscent of their old flavor, even though DEX and INT were suddenly jumping up on their priority list.) If you re-emphasized CON as a key stat for Rangers, I think you could actually get away with dropping Fortitude to the lower progression.

But I don't think you're looking for changes that radical.
I don't want to drop something as a good save just because the character can make up for it with a stat. If a ranger should thematically be really durable, then it should have a Fort save, whether or not Con is a primary stat. I'll give this some thought. Rangers have been a thorn in my side since I've started developing my system, so I'm not surprised that they're causing problems again.

Like I said before, it depends how you see the Bard. Reading about Taliesin tends to leave me with little doubt that Bards should have the best Will saves in the game. But D&D has kinda given up on Taliesin being its Bard model ever since the beginning of 2e. (The 1e Bard, now that was a proper Celtic archetype ...)
I think the 3e Bard as written doesn't really belong in the upper echelon of Will saves. But there is room for an alternate class that calls back to the other kind of bard which could get Will saves, possibly by giving up Reflex.

Do penalties get halved, as well? And keep in mind that, without also implementing your doubling of all ability modifiers, a character will have to have a STR/INT/WIS score of 14+ in order to actually see any effect from this rule.
Yes, penalties will get halved as well. Just as having a high Strength only helps so much, having the strength of a flea only hurts so much. And yes, without the other change which makes all ability modifiers higher, this has a relatively negligible effect on the game.

Disagree on both counts. Half WIS to Reflex won't stop anyone from dumping WIS. Even adding it to Initiative might not, either.

And I'm not sure what well-defined impact on personality you think Wisdom has. Consider the difference in personalities between a high-WIS Cleric and a high-WIS Ranger (both stereotypical).
In response, I quote:
[QUOTE=LordErebus12;15106867]and the pure gold of every character suddenly becoming ditzy characters as they dump it.
That is essentially what I'm thinking. Having had a player in my game with an 8 Int who was very, very good at accurately playing it, I, for one, welcome our new derpy overlords.

As I alluded to before ... boosting saves in general isn't exactly a horrible idea in 3e. Save DCs are too high in general.
Agreed. This helps address that.

Responses to Ashtagon and Yitzi:

Consider the physical analogy of that statement: "By knowing where you stand, you can stop yourself from being moved against your will." That doesn't really seem to be true...

Now, what is true is that by knowing your own mind, you can stop it from being changed against your will by trickery. But most Will save effects don't work through trickery; charm and illusion spells are the only exceptions I can think of.
This essentially captures my view. We talked about using Spot/Listen as "saves" against illusions above, and I really like that idea; it captures the fact that illusions really are a bit different than your average Will save. I am less sold on charm effects. I think that the stronger your personality, the harder it should be to alter that personality, and charm effects to alter your personality. The more certain you are in your convictions, the harder it should be to redirect those convictions.

Yakk

2013-04-17, 10:09 AM

8 stats?

Strength
Health
Size
Dexterity

Awareness (speed of thought, ability to pay attention to more than one thing)
Willpower
Theory of Mind (ability to model other creature's motivations and thought processes)
Memory

Then push for pairs of attributes to modify things. So initiative is Agility+Awareness. Weapon damage is Strength+Size. Attack bonuses is Strength+Dexterity. Hitpoints is Health+Size. Running long distances is Health+Strength.

Mental stats need work.

Just to Browse

2013-04-17, 11:03 AM

Because they were specifically talking about the take previous editions had had on it, and the way 3.x introduced a new focus on Cha as force of personality.

Holy **** I am the dumbest person ever.

I am so sorry. I need to learn to read.

Vadskye

2013-04-17, 11:06 AM

Holy **** I am the dumbest person ever.

I am so sorry. I need to learn to read.

No harm done :smallsmile:

Yitzi

2013-04-17, 11:48 AM

I am less sold on charm effects. I think that the stronger your personality, the harder it should be to alter that personality, and charm effects to alter your personality. The more certain you are in your convictions, the harder it should be to redirect those convictions.

Not necessarily. Imagine someone who has extremely strong convictions, but doesn't really understand them fully. This is essentially the "low WIS, high CHA" case, at least as it relates to this issue. Now, there is no way you're going to persuade that person that his convictions are wrong; if you try a frontal assault, it's not going to work. That's the analogue of a compulsion effect.

But if instead you go up to him, pretend to share his convictions, and just guide him toward the desired misunderstanding of what those convictions actually mean, you're probably going to have a good chance of success. That's the analogue of a charm effect.

Vadskye

2013-04-17, 11:54 AM

Not necessarily. Imagine someone who has extremely strong convictions, but doesn't really understand them fully. This is essentially the "low WIS, high CHA" case, at least as it relates to this issue. Now, there is no way you're going to persuade that person that his convictions are wrong; if you try a frontal assault, it's not going to work. That's the analogue of a compulsion effect.

But if instead you go up to him, pretend to share his convictions, and just guide him toward the desired misunderstanding of what those convictions actually mean, you're probably going to have a good chance of success. That's the analogue of a charm effect.

Actually, that makes some sense to me. Mechanically, then, what would that be? A Sense Motive check? That was what was suggested before, and the more I think about it, the more I can see that working. I might increase the number of classes at have it as a class skill, then. (it should be mentioned that my system is friendlier to cross-class skills than core).

Draz74

2013-04-17, 12:11 PM

Holy **** I am the dumbest person ever.

I am so sorry. I need to learn to read.
Thanks for being man enough to admit your mistake, and apologizing! Internet forums need more sincere "derps."

It's not weaker that it previously was, but it is obviously weaker than Dexterity or Charisma, because those are the primary save stats. If a player builds their character, the obvious numerical superiority of Dexterity and Charisma will cause an increase in Dex/Cha being favored over Strength. And that will homogenize characters, which I consider detrimental.
Like Vadskye said ... by this logic, all 3e characters are obviously DEX/CON/WIS based. Which is obviously nowhere close to true.

Any changes that make the ability scores more equal overall will actually dehomogenize characters, regardless of whether the change comes in the form of a new bonus, a nerf, or some non-numerical qualitative change.

Heck, this doesn't actually help saves get boosted because even slightly dumped stats result in a penalty. Characters will feel the pain, but monsters will get the buff.
You do have a good point nestled in this paragraph: which direction does the "half" round, on penalties?

Because now players see it. People don't like having to write down that -1 from their 9 Str because it makes them feel bad that their character is worse off, despite the fact that a -1 is so minor that you can't even tell the difference on a night when you rolled well versus poorly.

I really disagree with you. This does very minor things to balance the game positively, but I think it brings a much harder psychological toll. The more minuses on my character sheet, the sadder I get. The more things I have to mentally juggle when I write a character, the more frustrated I get. A houserule should not cause me to be sadder and more frustrated.
Well ... get over your shallow impressions that don't actually have an effect on game mechanics? Seriously, this makes it sound like you'd be frustrated if a new houserule gave you a -2 penalty to your attack rolls, even if the same houserule gave a -4 penalty to the AC of all your enemies.

I have enough confidence in D&D players to believe that most of them will see a new STR-based bonus as a positive reason to have a good STR score, even if the new bonus makes it "more obvious" that STR is inferior (with regard to Fortitude saves specifically) to CON. (I think most of them could already figure out that STR was inferior to CON in the realm of Fortitude saves, without the word "half" to tip them off, just by the absence of STR affecting Fortitude at all. :smalltongue:)

First, let me say that I'm really glad this is attracting interest. I am paying close attention to the arguments here, and I've changed elements of my system before when faced with near-unanimous disagreement. (My players reacted poorly to my attempts to redefine Enchantment to include spells like Magic Weapon.)
Too bad. Enchantment needs to stop being practically defined as "the mind-affecting school," if it's ever going to not be the automatic-drop school for specialists. And back in 2e, crafting magic items was explicitly called "enchanting" them in the rules.

Responses to Draz:
What a mess of unrelated concepts. Guile? Really? So I will change my argument from "I am upholding the traditions of D&D ability scores" to "I am actively not trying to uphold the traditions of D&D ability scores because they are dumb".
Fair enough. :smallamused: I came to the same conclusion myself, after all, although with a more drastic implementation ...

I think the 3e Bard as written doesn't really belong in the upper echelon of Will saves. But there is room for an alternate class that calls back to the other kind of bard which could get Will saves, possibly by giving up Reflex.
Sure, that can work.

On our other disagreements you quoted ... I think we've boiled the topics down to pure opinion, so from here on out it's "agree to disagree" territory.

Yitzi

2013-04-17, 12:25 PM

Holy **** I am the dumbest person ever.

I am so sorry. I need to learn to read.

Hey, everybody makes that sort of mistake sometimes.

Actually, that makes some sense to me. Mechanically, then, what would that be? A Sense Motive check? That was what was suggested before, and the more I think about it, the more I can see that working. I might increase the number of classes at have it as a class skill, then. (it should be mentioned that my system is friendlier to cross-class skills than core).

Sense Motive seems it could work if you don't mind having a skill instead of saves.

Vadskye

2013-04-17, 04:46 PM

Thanks for being man enough to admit your mistake, and apologizing! Internet forums need more sincere "derps."
The only thing everyone in this thread can agree on, apparently. :smalltongue:

You do have a good point nestled in this paragraph: which direction does the "half" round, on penalties?
I would say down, to maintain continuity with the entire rest of D&D.

Too bad. Enchantment needs to stop being practically defined as "the mind-affecting school," if it's ever going to not be the automatic-drop school for specialists. And back in 2e, crafting magic items was explicitly called "enchanting" them in the rules.
Maybe. I gave it a darned good shot in my system to keep it balanced with the other schools. But if it still gets auto-dropped by players (haven't DMed for many wizards yet), I might revisit this issue.

On our other disagreements you quoted ... I think we've boiled the topics down to pure opinion, so from here on out it's "agree to disagree" territory.
Sounds like a plan. I'm pretty sure I'm not off my rocker with this system, at least. That's definitely helpful.

TuggyNE

2013-04-17, 09:44 PM

Holy **** I am the dumbest person ever.

I am so sorry. I need to learn to read.

It happens to everyone* once in a while. Only problem is when you don't admit or figure it out. :smallwink:

Cheers!

*Pretty sure even Curmudgeon has had it happen once in a while. :smalltongue:

Yitzi

2013-04-17, 10:01 PM

Too bad. Enchantment needs to stop being practically defined as "the mind-affecting school," if it's ever going to not be the automatic-drop school for specialists.

I'm not so sure of that. Even with purely mind-affecting effects, that includes some pretty powerful debuffs (and it could be made even more so by folding fear effects into Enchantment.) More interestingly, there's no reason that "mind-affecting" has to imply harmful; positive morale effects naturally belong in Enchantment.

More interestingly, it might make sense for various beneficial forms of polymorph effects to have the limitations of Alter Self with regard to use of extra limbs, new senses, etc (and maybe even some limitations that Alter Self lacks), simply because the humanoid mind lacks the internal mechanisms to deal with those things...and then there could be an Enchantment effect that grants those internal mechanisms and the resulting ability to use the physical capabilities of the form.

Roderick_BR

2013-04-18, 08:47 AM

Agreed. Charisma was expanded in 3.x, and now makes better sense than Wisdom. The thing is that Wisdom was more about "self-control" and discipline than raw will power.
There are feats and classes that let you swap Wisdom and Charisma bonuses for Will Saves, but it feels like feat taxing. If it's too much of an issue, you can do like 4th did, allowing you to freely select wich stat you'll use in a save.
Will Saves: Wisdom or Charisma (discipline and self-control, or raw guts).
Reflex Saves: Dexterity or Inteligence (quick wits will make you react fast too)
Fortitude Saves: Constitution or Strength (raw strength doesn't directly affect health, but for Fort saves, I think that you can go gritchy and try to shrug off effects just by focusing your body's raw power in anyway).

Xuldarinar

2013-04-18, 11:52 AM

Ashtagon

2013-04-18, 12:19 PM

I agree with this solution. While I disagree with the idea of force of will and strength of will being the same thing, 4e has the answer to the problem here.

Personally, I see 4e as having a bad solution here.

Allowing Strength to cover Fortitude saves should logically require you to be aware of the attack, so you can tense your muscles 'just so' to resist the attack. Except Fort saves also (primarily?) covers poisons, for which Strength makes no sense at all.

Reflex saves are all about moving out of the way. Professor X (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_X) and Stephen Hawking should logically have crappy Reflex saves (Xavier is a telepath, so maybe. Hawking, not so much.) This fact is lampshaded in oots: Start of Darkness. Doesn't really matter how smart you are if you're crippled - you're going anywhere fast under your own steam.

And Charisma has already been established as the primarily attribute associated with mental attacks. Allowing it to cover mental defences too removes the potential for characters that cover the mental equivalent of 'glass jaw' warriors (good offence, weak defence).

Yes, these give additional options for flexibility and ability point moving for optimisation, resulting in stronger characters. But they remove potential character concepts from the game.

However...

Will saves seem to be doing multi-duty, merging some concepts that I suspect should be separate. There is s difference between phantasmal killer and charm person, which directly attack the mind, and regular "disbelief" (non-figment) illusions, which create an optical illusion to trick the senses. A decent Perception skill check should grant a bonus; I'm not sure if the skill should act ass a replacement entirely, unless skill rank bonus scaling is rebalanced to progress at the same rate as saving throw bonus scaling. Additionally, Will saves seem to have been made to serve as a "morale" save for fear effects (both mundane and supernatural). That should probably be broken out as an entirely separate check.

Vadskye

2013-04-18, 12:49 PM

Personally, I see 4e as having a bad solution here.
Agreed, for reasons discussed above.

And Charisma has already been established as the primarily attribute associated with mental attacks. Allowing it to cover mental defences too removes the potential for characters that cover the mental equivalent of 'glass jaw' warriors (good offence, weak defence).
This I agree with less. There are still "glass jaw" mental warriors - those are low Charisma wizards and clerics, who have mental prowess and finesse but not necessarily sheer force of will. Sorcerers and (maybe) bards are tough on both fronts, but that's okay.

Will saves seem to be doing multi-duty, merging some concepts that I suspect should be separate. There is s difference between phantasmal killer and charm person, which directly attack the mind, and regular "disbelief" (non-figment) illusions, which create an optical illusion to trick the senses. A decent Perception skill check should grant a bonus; I'm not sure if the skill should act ass a replacement entirely, unless skill rank bonus scaling is rebalanced to progress at the same rate as saving throw bonus scaling. Additionally, Will saves seem to have been made to serve as a "morale" save for fear effects (both mundane and supernatural). That should probably be broken out as an entirely separate check.

This is interesting to me. In my system, making a successful Spot or Listen check against the DC of an illusion counts as "interacting" with it, granting an automatic Will save. And just like with any interaction, you can keep interacting with it (looking for more irregularities) to keep making Will saves; once you are tipped off that something is off, it is only a matter of time before even the most powerful illusion crumbles. I think this is a fairly intuitive solution.

I do think morale and fear effects fit fairly comfortably within the realm of Will, though. Maybe not as obviously as something like a Dominate, but resisting the frightful presence of a dragon definitely sounds like a Will save to me.

Sylthia

2013-04-18, 11:50 PM

Ashtagon

2013-04-19, 12:31 AM

I agree with having Cha work as the Will save stat if for nothing more than balance. I see Charisma as force of will, luck, battle-presence, etc. It also gives somewhat of a penalty for trying to dump any given stat too much. I believe every stat should have at least some sort of drawback if you dump it too low. Maybe a 8 for a -1 can be overcome, but now you can't stick a 3 in Cha and call it a day.

Str: carrying capacity
Dex: AC, Ref saves, Initiative
Con: HP, Fort saves
Int: Skills
Wis: Perception (May not seem like much, but everyone wants to act in the surprise round, rather than letting the party face handle all the social interactions.)
Cha: Will saves (I add it to Initiative as well, but not everyone agrees with me, so to each his own.)

All things being equal Wis and Str seem to be the biggest dump stats before taking into consideration which class one might be. (And it also depends on how much of a stickler for encumbrance the DM is.)

Str: Carrying capacity, melee attack/damage rolls
Dex: AC, Reflex saves, Initiative, ranged attack rolls
Con: HP, Fort saves
Int: Skills
Wis: Will saves, Perception
Cha: Action points

Slightly different split for me here. I use Charisma as a modifier on available action points, so a typical character gets 5 + 1/2 character level + Cha modifier action points. I also allow characters to regain action points (one for a full night's rest), so they play a far bigger role in my games.

I'm also working on a set of "social combat" rules, which will make social interaction be hinge on something more meaningful than a single Diplomacy check.

rexreg

2013-04-19, 09:33 AM

the stat used as a modifier for any Save is mutable:
as a DM I've used:
Fort - Str, Con, Chr
Ref - Dex, Str (the last only because a player threw a fit the first time i did this; something about going from a 30 Dex to a 7 Str...now i can't help but trying to find excuses to use it :smallbiggrin:)
Will - Cha, Wis, Int (once)

all this being said, i am currently playing a PF Godling who uses Str for all 3 of his Saves...

BlackLamb

2013-04-19, 03:00 PM

Yitzi

2013-04-19, 05:53 PM

The idea skills in place of saves is almost a good idea, but I fear it may diminish the importance of good / bad saves. Maybe if there was some penalty for using a skill untrained?

Or maybe skills take the place of saves only in certain specific circumstance, and only a few skills (usually less-common ones.)

Sylthia

2013-04-19, 10:58 PM

I like the idea of Charisam to Will saves. I also like the idea of Charisma to Initiative. The idea being self-confidence and the willingness to put yourself out there.

To prevent Wisodm form being a dumpstat except for casters, I like giving Wisdom to ranged attack and damage. Yes, both attack and damage. I hate archers being MAD.

Dexterity still goes to AC, so it is still important.

The idea skills in place of saves is almost a good idea, but I fear it may diminish the importance of good / bad saves. Maybe if there was some penalty for using a skill untrained?

Your idea has merit, but wisdom still wouldn't be a true dump stat. Perception based skills work off of it, which come into play in surprise rounds. I don't like having dump stats in the sense you can have a 3 in it and suffer no consequences, but I think one should be able to get by with an 8 or 10 without feeling the hurt too much.

This would make wisdom's worth suffer from the same skill scaling that charisma now does, but all characters will be making perception checks, while low-Cha characters can just sit back and let the party face handle the social interactions in 95% of cases.

Elrahc

2013-07-04, 11:04 PM

TuggyNE

2013-07-04, 11:53 PM

Strength
A measure of how physically strong a character is. Measures to what extent physical effects can be broken (think breaking free from being stuck in a Web).

Dexterity
A measure of how agile the character is. Measures to what extent physical effects can be avoided (think avoiding getting stuck in a Web).

Constitution
A measure of how resilient a character is. Measures to what extent physical effects can be resisted (think massive damage threshold).

Intelligence
A measure of how good a character is at problem-solving. Measures to what extent mind-altering effects can be avoided (think avoiding charm person as recognizing it for what it is).

Wisdom
A measure of how wise and insightful a character is. Measures to what extent mind-altering effects can be resisted (think effects that can't be avoided; that dragon is terrifying, but you resist running).

Charisma
A measure of how good a character is at focusing their force of will. Measures to what extent mind-altering effects can be broken (think effects that you couldn't avoid or resist).

Kinda broke down things into the categories of avoid, resist, and break-free of, matching up Body abilities and Mind abilities.

That's a pretty good breakdown, in general, although I'd avoid using Massive Damage rules as the example for Con (since a lot of people find them kind of lame). The similarities between mental/physical strength, mental/physical agility, and mental/physical durability are not something I'd thought much about before, if at all.

Vadskye

2013-07-05, 03:59 AM

Great thread, I'll be sure to check out the Rise thread, next.

For what it's worth, here's a take I have been playing with, on the ability scores and how they impact saves.

Strength
A measure of how physically strong a character is. Measures to what extent physical effects can be broken (think breaking free from being stuck in a Web).

Dexterity
A measure of how agile the character is. Measures to what extent physical effects can be avoided (think avoiding getting stuck in a Web).

Constitution
A measure of how resilient a character is. Measures to what extent physical effects can be resisted (think massive damage threshold).

Intelligence
A measure of how good a character is at problem-solving. Measures to what extent mind-altering effects can be avoided (think avoiding charm person as recognizing it for what it is).

Wisdom
A measure of how wise and insightful a character is. Measures to what extent mind-altering effects can be resisted (think effects that can't be avoided; that dragon is terrifying, but you resist running).

Charisma
A measure of how good a character is at focusing their force of will. Measures to what extent mind-altering effects can be broken (think effects that you couldn't avoid or resist).

Kinda broke down things into the categories of avoid, resist, and break-free of, matching up Body abilities and Mind abilities.

Anyway, I really enjoyed the thread and need to mull things over before I'm happy enough to commit to something. Having clear cross-over tables to convert existing d20SRD material and whatnot would be preferable, keeping it simple...

Thanks for the thread :)

-Elrahc

I hope I like what you see from Rise! As far as your ideas on ability scores goes, I am intrigued by the basic distinction of avoid/resist/break. I'm not sure I would put things in the same place, though; Wisdom should be very consistently characterized as the perception stat. That means it would be avoid avoiding, not resisting. I would put Charisma as the core resistance stat, and Intelligence as the "breaking" stat.

My next thought is: does this divide make more sense than the Fort/Ref/Will divide? Maybe, but I'm not sure about that. I think the barbarian fits fairly comfortably into the concept of "good Fort, average Reflex, bad Will". I don't think I could build classes that have "good resistance, bad breaking, average avoidance". It just doesn't feel as intuitive to me. It is a good way to think about the ability scores, though - even if I wouldn't rewrite mechanics to suit it, it would be a good addition to the fluff descriptions for Rise (which are currently absent) to help players think about what the ability scores mean.

Side note: there is one concept that neither D&D nor Rise currently deals with very well - the distinction between resisting a mental effect and "seeing through" the effect. For example, a dominate effect is resisted, but a phantasm or illusion isn't really "resisted" in the same sense. I'm still looking for a way to deal with this problem, but it seems relevant to the discussions here. Could there be a fourth save type, as Kirthfinder (https://sites.google.com/site/triomegazero/kirthfinder) uses, devoted to avoiding these sorts of effects? That may help clarify the Wisdom/Charisma dichotomy.

Elrahc

2013-07-05, 02:27 PM

I hope I like what you see from Rise! As far as your ideas on ability scores goes, I am intrigued by the basic distinction of avoid/resist/break. I'm not sure I would put things in the same place, though; Wisdom should be very consistently characterized as the perception stat. That means it would be avoid avoiding, not resisting. I would put Charisma as the core resistance stat, and Intelligence as the "breaking" stat.
I like that better, good call.

My next thought is: does this divide make more sense than the Fort/Ref/Will divide? Maybe, but I'm not sure about that. I think the barbarian fits fairly comfortably into the concept of "good Fort, average Reflex, bad Will". I don't think I could build classes that have "good resistance, bad breaking, average avoidance". It just doesn't feel as intuitive to me. It is a good way to think about the ability scores, though - even if I wouldn't rewrite mechanics to suit it, it would be a good addition to the fluff descriptions for Rise (which are currently absent) to help players think about what the ability scores mean.

I can honestly say that I hadn't thought very far ahead. I agree that it may not be suitable to actually do mechanics around this - especially if my goal is to do simple variants of d20 that can easily translate from existing material (cross-reference tables / Rosetta Stones kinda thing) and not re-inventing the wheel to be octagonal.

Side note: there is one concept that neither D&D nor Rise currently deals with very well - the distinction between resisting a mental effect and "seeing through" the effect. For example, a dominate effect is resisted, but a phantasm or illusion isn't really "resisted" in the same sense. I'm still looking for a way to deal with this problem, but it seems relevant to the discussions here. Could there be a fourth save type, as Kirthfinder (https://sites.google.com/site/triomegazero/kirthfinder) uses, devoted to avoiding these sorts of effects? That may help clarify the Wisdom/Charisma dichotomy.
I would be very wary of introducing a new save. I do like the way you have your Rise abilities contribute to the saves (that feels easy to add to existing content and I like it - hmm, wonder how that would feel with my avoid, resist, break take on it). What may work better is to re-institute "I attempt to Disbelieve!" :elan: - 'coz old school had some things right. Anyway, it could be a skill, like Discipline and Concentration. Sense Motive the same way?

I don't know, kinda throwing things out there at the moment. I will be re-reading some things from here to finalize my take on Charisma vs. Wisdom for saves, and if I want to rename them, too. I don't see why we can't call Wisdom for Insight, and Charisma for Willpower...

-Elrahc

Vadskye

2013-07-05, 03:03 PM

I can honestly say that I hadn't thought very far ahead. I agree that it may not be suitable to actually do mechanics around this - especially if my goal is to do simple variants of d20 that can easily translate from existing material (cross-reference tables / Rosetta Stones kinda thing) and not re-inventing the wheel to be octagonal.
Personally, I see 3.5 as octogonal, and I'm trying to turn it into a wheel. :smalltongue:

I would be very wary of introducing a new save. I do like the way you have your Rise abilities contribute to the saves (that feels easy to add to existing content and I like it - hmm, wonder how that would feel with my avoid, resist, break take on it). What may work better is to re-institute "I attempt to Disbelieve!" :elan: - 'coz old school had some things right. Anyway, it could be a skill, like Discipline and Concentration. Sense Motive the same way?
I hesitate to completely replace saves with skills. In 3.5, skill checks are vastly higher than saves, so if you're going for comparatively minor changes, that's a problem. The numbers actually work out fairly similarly in my rewrite, but I still don't like making a skill be defensive combat attribute. Skills should be for utility and extra options, not staying alive. With that said, I can definitely see a role for skills to support saving throws. What if you could reflexively make a Spot/Listen check to "interact with" an illusion, granting you a Will save against it? This would help clarify what it means to "interact with" an illusion from a distance and allow the possibility for "I attempt to disbelieve" while limiting the degree to which players should attempt to disbelieve literally everything.

I could potentially see Sense Motive checks to recognize unnatural mental influence, but the fluff for that is hazier. I'm not sure if that makes as much sense.

I don't know, kinda throwing things out there at the moment. I will be re-reading some things from here to finalize my take on Charisma vs. Wisdom for saves, and if I want to rename them, too. I don't see why we can't call Wisdom for Insight, and Charisma for Willpower...

-Elrahc
History, mostly. Insight is a perfectly servicable name. I do prefer Charisma to Willpower, though. Charisma is about more than just sheer willpower - it also encompasses force of personality. The two are related, and I don't have a problem with a single stat including both, but "Charisma" better captures the intention of the ability, I think.

Bezzerker

2013-07-05, 04:36 PM

I could potentially see Sense Motive checks to recognize unnatural mental influence, but the fluff for that is hazier. I'm not sure if that makes as much sense.

Actually, to me the fluff for using Sense Motive makes a lot of sense. Since Sense Motive is a Wis-based skill, you would use it to detect outside mental influence for the same reason you use Sense Motive to counter someone's Bluff. Outside mental influences often want to not only take over your mind, but to do so in a way that makes you not realize you're being influenced at all.

To use an example from the Batman Beyond cartoon, there was an episode called 'Shriek' where the villain was attempting to influence Bruce Banner. Through-out the episode, Bruce heard the mental 'voices', trying to drive him crazy. However, Bruce was able to recognize that the voices weren't coming from himself, as the voices referred to himself as 'Bruce'. I personally would say in that case that Bruce's Sense Motive beat the villain's Bluff.

Wisdom provides you a way to recognize that there is an outside influence in your mind.
Charisma is how you kick the outside influence out of your mind.

Vadskye

2013-07-05, 04:42 PM

Ooh, I actually do really like that. Thanks, Elements. I'll have to figure out how to work it mechanically (how often can a character make that sort of Sense Motive check? What is the DC? Can the player make it actively, or is it always reflexive?), but I definitely like the way this feels.

Bezzerker

2013-07-05, 07:43 PM

The Rose Dragon

2013-07-05, 07:45 PM

To use an example from the Batman Beyond cartoon, there was an episode called 'Shriek' where the villain was attempting to influence Bruce Banner.

So there was a The Hulk / Batman crossover and I somehow missed it. I feel bad about that.

Vadskye

2013-07-05, 08:14 PM

Off the top of my head I would say:

How Often? - Anytime a character has a chance to notice an inconsistency. Like an Illusion, if you don't 'interact' with the infiltrator, you wouldn't have a reason to suspect something is amiss. (i.e. Bruce Wayne thinks of himself as 'Batman'. When the villain made the mistake of using 'Bruce', Bruce Wayne got a Sense Motive check.)
I like this. (Incidentally, I believe this means there was no Hulk/Batman crossover, The Rose Dragon. Sorry!)

What is the DC? - DC is set by the infiltrator's Bluff roll. Like disguise checks, this roll would probably be made in secret. Re-roll Bluff for every new thought, with a stacking bonus limited to 5(?) bonuses for every thought the target has accepted before this one. (i.e. Adam is attempting to influence Bob. Bob has failed a Sense Motive check once before this attempt, so Adam gets a +2 bonus to his Bluff roll. If Bob makes this check, Adam will lose any stacking bonus he had.)
I'm not sure I like keying it directly to Bluff. A powerful enchanter shouldn't be required to have Bluff; I think it makes perfect sense to say that he may be a bad liar in person (too much time studying arcane tomes), while still being a master of manipulative magic. With that said, I could see it helping. What if the DC was the higher of the spell's save DC and the caster's Bluff check?

Active or Reflexive? - I would say reflexive. As soon as a character succeeds at their Sense Motive check, they would then shift into making active Will Saves to kick out the infiltrator. Perhaps they can only go 'active' if they get 5(?) or more points over the DC or succeed on three Sense Motives in a row, which ever comes first.
I agree that the Sense Motive check would be reflexive. For the sake of simplicity, I am tempted to just say that success on the Sense Motive check allows you to start making Will saves to resist the effect. If that feels too harsh against mental influence, I would alter it such that one success alerts to the existence of unnatural mental influence, but doesn't give you enough information to start making Will saves to throw it off. Two successes, or a success by 10 or more, allows you to start actively resisting the effect with Will saves.

Carl

2013-07-05, 09:07 PM

This is an interesting discussion and somewhat comes back to something I'm going to go into in my own analysis of the system. Charisma never works in any combat heavy RPG as a main stat. Unless you step outside common sense definitions of the various common stat's seen in numerous RPG's and the like charisma inherently should only really be applicable to things that are primarily of a non-combat nature. Unless your dealing with a class able to turn those non-combat elements into something usable in combat, (e.g. Bards), it really doesn't fit as a combat relevant ability score.

Wisdom suffer in discushions like this mostly from, (in 3.5), Intelligence also being a stat, with the resultant knock on affects that bring in terms of interlinked and interleaved concepts. They're hard to separate from one another.

Vadskye

2013-07-05, 09:17 PM

This is an interesting discussion and somewhat comes back to something I'm going to go into in my own analysis of the system. Charisma never works in any combat heavy RPG as a main stat. Unless you step outside common sense definitions of the various common stat's seen in numerous RPG's and the like charisma inherently should only really be applicable to things that are primarily of a non-combat nature. Unless your dealing with a class able to turn those non-combat elements into something usable in combat, (e.g. Bards), it really doesn't fit as a combat relevant ability score.
This is essentially true, depending on what you mean by combat. For example, Charisma - more than any other ability - should never have direct physical ramifications. However, part of combat is mental. Intimidation and similarly themed effects definitely belong to Charisma, and could be considered a part of combat.

Carl

2013-07-05, 09:34 PM

his is essentially true, depending on what you mean by combat. For example, Charisma - more than any other ability - should never have direct physical ramifications. However, part of combat is mental. Intimidation and similarly themed effects definitely belong to Charisma, and could be considered a part of combat.

I'd disagree on intimidation. Whilst some people with very special social skills, and the intelligence, (and depending on how you define it, possibly wisdom as well), can use their social skills to intimidate. But the majority of the time your intimidate'd by someone either because they posses a lots of power May be Physical, may be political, may even be that they're just really knowledgeable.

Charisma if you stick with the basic common sense English definition covers social skills, possibly looks, and at the outside, the arts. Unless you need an in combat negotiation or the like your not going to get much use out of any of those, (bard being an obvious exception).

You can move beyond that, but at that point you have to start stretching the charisma definition a lot.

Bezzerker

2013-07-05, 10:10 PM

I like this. (Incidentally, I believe this means there was no Hulk/Batman crossover, The Rose Dragon. Sorry!)

Yeah, I mixed up my Bruce's for some reason :smallredface:

I'm not sure I like keying it directly to Bluff. A powerful enchanter shouldn't be required to have Bluff; I think it makes perfect sense to say that he may be a bad liar in person (too much time studying arcane tomes), while still being a master of manipulative magic. With that said, I could see it helping. What if the DC was the higher of the spell's save DC and the caster's Bluff check?

My reasoning for keying it to Bluff was that for subtler mental magics, you're not simply smashing through your target's mind, you're trying to undermine it all together. To do so, you need to have your target believe that the thoughts they are having are their own thoughts, rather than someone else's. Rather "Inception"-like I think. To disguise this fact, you have to pretend to be that person. I would think that the studies for manipulative magics would include at least a basic understanding of psychology, so that you can know what you want to target to make the victim more open to your suggestions.

That being said, instead of the higher of the two, I would have the spell give a bonus the caster's Bluff check instead. That would represent the magics assisting the caster in his deceit better in my mind.

I agree that the Sense Motive check would be reflexive. For the sake of simplicity, I am tempted to just say that success on the Sense Motive check allows you to start making Will saves to resist the effect. If that feels too harsh against mental influence, I would alter it such that one success alerts to the existence of unnatural mental influence, but doesn't give you enough information to start making Will saves to throw it off. Two successes, or a success by 10 or more, allows you to start actively resisting the effect with Will saves.

Whatever works. I was mostly going for a three strikes kinda deal for the mental magics. If you don't get 10 or over the first time you succeed your Sense Motive check, you simply dismiss the thought. Most people I think have had those off-the-wall random thoughts that come out of no where, so it wouldn't be that strange. The second time, maybe just a coincidence. Three times though? Something's wrong.

That's what my thought processes were for my choices. Part of this was to ensure that the rules could be used by the PCs just as much as the mobs they face.

Elrahc

2013-07-05, 10:12 PM

I think Charisma should play a large role in combat, from a Cleric's turnings to psionic powers. From what I've read on d20srd, the psionic powers tap into all three mind stats (INT, WIS, CHA) - at least I saw mention of them all as I read on miscellaneous Powers and their usage.

That's how I want to continue shaping Charisma, to be force of will-ish and have an active contribution in combat, as a modifier to saves and as a base for powers.

I got a lot of reading to do, still, and I am having a hard time remembering which source I got what from, but my opinion on the Charisma ability needing to be more than a Personal Relations modifier for "RP skill-checks" is strong.

-Elrahc

Elrahc

2013-07-05, 10:15 PM

I would think that the studies for manipulative magics would include at least a basic understanding of psychology, so that you can know what you want to target to make the victim more open to your suggestions.

That being said, instead of the higher of the two, I would have the spell give a bonus the caster's Bluff check instead. That would represent the magics assisting the caster in his deceit better in my mind.

I like this very much. Perhaps the magic of the spell affects both the mind of the target and that of the caster, the latter in the sense that it helps them manipulate the target better.

Vadskye

2013-07-06, 12:31 AM

I'd disagree on intimidation. Whilst some people with very special social skills, and the intelligence, (and depending on how you define it, possibly wisdom as well), can use their social skills to intimidate. But the majority of the time your intimidate'd by someone either because they posses a lots of power May be Physical, may be political, may even be that they're just really knowledgeable.

Charisma if you stick with the basic common sense English definition covers social skills, possibly looks, and at the outside, the arts. Unless you need an in combat negotiation or the like your not going to get much use out of any of those, (bard being an obvious exception).

You can move beyond that, but at that point you have to start stretching the charisma definition a lot.
Yes, D&D does stretch the strict dictionary definition of Charisma. But it does the same thing with all sorts of words - particularly with anything relating to magic. Necromancy in D&D, for example, is quite different from necromancy elsewhere. That's okay. Charisma needs to be expanded in order to prevent it from being a useless stat. And I think that the identity which we have given it here still fits within the intuitive conception of Charisma. Your mileage may vary, of course.

My reasoning for keying it to Bluff was that for subtler mental magics, you're not simply smashing through your target's mind, you're trying to undermine it all together. To do so, you need to have your target believe that the thoughts they are having are their own thoughts, rather than someone else's. Rather "Inception"-like I think. To disguise this fact, you have to pretend to be that person. I would think that the studies for manipulative magics would include at least a basic understanding of psychology, so that you can know what you want to target to make the victim more open to your suggestions.

That being said, instead of the higher of the two, I would have the spell give a bonus the caster's Bluff check instead. That would represent the magics assisting the caster in his deceit better in my mind.
While I enjoy the fluff of adding them, the mechanics are very difficult; that will routinely result in unbeatable DCs. That would be like adding your Tumble check to your AC against attacks of opportunity; the fluff makes some sense, but it just doesn't work as a mechanic.

Whatever works. I was mostly going for a three strikes kinda deal for the mental magics. If you don't get 10 or over the first time you succeed your Sense Motive check, you simply dismiss the thought. Most people I think have had those off-the-wall random thoughts that come out of no where, so it wouldn't be that strange. The second time, maybe just a coincidence. Three times though? Something's wrong.

That's what my thought processes were for my choices. Part of this was to ensure that the rules could be used by the PCs just as much as the mobs they face.
Yeah, but a three-strikes system means that PCs are just about the only people that could ever reasonably benefit from it. 90% of NPCs would be out of the picture before they would have a chance to make three separate Sense Motive checks. Better to make the PCs worried about making a mistake and allowing the NPC to roll a Sense Motive check.

I think Charisma should play a large role in combat, from a Cleric's turnings to psionic powers. From what I've read on d20srd, the psionic powers tap into all three mind stats (INT, WIS, CHA) - at least I saw mention of them all as I read on miscellaneous Powers and their usage.

That's how I want to continue shaping Charisma, to be force of will-ish and have an active contribution in combat, as a modifier to saves and as a base for powers.

I got a lot of reading to do, still, and I am having a hard time remembering which source I got what from, but my opinion on the Charisma ability needing to be more than a Personal Relations modifier for "RP skill-checks" is strong.

-Elrahc
I mostly agree (though I haven't touched psionics yet with my system). For example, both paladins and clerics in my world draw their spells and many class features from Charisma. Even some druid abilities, such as their ability to speak with and command animals, are based on Charisma. There is definitely room for Charisma to show up more in mechanics than it currently does without breaking its fluff.

Elrahc

2013-07-06, 12:47 AM

After mulling, I'm inclined to say a 4th save may not be such a bad idea, after all. Thinking here in terms of Resist and Avoid, with either turning into Break, if needed, after they fail.

For example:

Fortitude (CON) is used to resist effects to the body. If you fail, you can use it again later to resist successfully (break) the effect.
Reflex (DEX) is used to avoid effects to the body. If you fail, you can use it again to avoid successfully (break) the effect.
Will (CHA) is used to resist effects to the mind. If you fail, you can use it again to resist successfully (break) the effect.
Perception (WIS) is used to avoid effects to the mind. If you fail, you can use it again later to avoid successfully (break) the effect.

I believe this could be a decent meet-in-the-middle approach that can deal with the mentioned scenarios in this thread.

Existing spells could be modified fairly easily to account for these, IMHO, but here I'm going on my charisma-based belief in my suggestion, rather than any actual proof. :smallwink:

-Elrahc

Carl

2013-07-06, 12:59 AM

Yes, D&D does stretch the strict dictionary definition of Charisma. But it does the same thing with all sorts of words - particularly with anything relating to magic. Necromancy in D&D, for example, is quite different from necromancy elsewhere. That's okay. Charisma needs to be expanded in order to prevent it from being a useless stat. And I think that the identity which we have given it here still fits within the intuitive conception of Charisma. Your mileage may vary, of course.

The point i was trying to make is this: Every other stat in D&D, (and most combat centric systems anywhere), already possesses some basic or better in combat application. Though of course the fine line between intelligence and wisdom makes some of the distinctions tough. The point however is the rest are stretched a little for increased utility, whereas charisma has to be stretched a lot more and step all over wisdom and intelligence. You can certainly play with things to create a 3rd mental stat that is combat relevant, but if you do it's not charisma because everything that charisma is defined as is only a minor part of the end result.

A much better question than "how do we make charisma combat relevant?" is "do we need charisma at all as an ability score?"

TuggyNE

2013-07-06, 01:28 AM

The point i was trying to make is this: Every other stat in D&D, (and most combat centric systems anywhere), already possesses some basic or better in combat application. Though of course the fine line between intelligence and wisdom makes some of the distinctions tough.

What are Int and Wis used for? I know Wis is used for Spot/Listen checks (but those aren't usually in combat), and for Stunning Fist/Monk AC (but those aren't very basic or very common), and it's obviously normally used for Will saves, but since the point of this thread is to shift Will saves over to Cha that doesn't count. Int is used for … random shoehorned-in feat prerequisites. That's basically it.

Or did you mean spellcasting? Because Cha is a perfectly reasonable spellcasting stat too.

I think, though, it would be fairer to simply accept that none of the mental stats has much built-in combat usage; the only way any of them see much use is through class features. Contrast Str, Dex, and Con, which are used for AC, combat maneuvers, saves, attacks, damage, health, skills, feat prerequisites, and probably several things I'm forgetting.

Carl

2013-07-06, 01:45 AM

You missed a few points i think somewhere there.

First i'm really not interested in the purpose of this thread. I'm interested in the sub discussion vis a vis charisma's uses.

Second, i'm not focusing just on current uses but what you can potentially justify, the warrior who beats his opponent by knowing more than him or by just plain out thinking him is quite a common fictional theme, the wise and the learned warrior archatypes are quite popular. On the other hand unless it drags in a lot of potent allies, being easily likeable isn't very handy in a fight for most warrior's, it's something many have, being the heroes and all, but it's not the thing that makes them powerful.

Third if you want to get technical wisdom as noted is used for some handy checks, will saves, and of course is well used by a number of classes for class features. Intelligence is a bit less well used but it's still got several classes focusing powerful features of it plus if your building a skill focused character the extra skill points really mater. Charisma has nothing unless your using the specific skills or are a class built off it as a class skill, (and the two tend to be connected more closely than some other ability score/skill combinations).

TuggyNE

2013-07-06, 02:45 AM

Second, i'm not focusing just on current uses but what you can potentially justify, the warrior who beats his opponent by knowing more than him or by just plain out thinking him is quite a common fictional theme, the wise and the learned warrior archatypes are quite popular. On the other hand unless it drags in a lot of potent allies, being easily likeable isn't very handy in a fight for most warrior's, it's something many have, being the heroes and all, but it's not the thing that makes them powerful.

How about being intimidating, or managing to keep someone talking long enough to distract them?

Third if you want to get technical wisdom as noted is used for some handy checks, will saves, and of course is well used by a number of classes for class features. Intelligence is a bit less well used but it's still got several classes focusing powerful features of it plus if your building a skill focused character the extra skill points really mater. Charisma has nothing unless your using the specific skills or are a class built off it as a class skill, (and the two tend to be connected more closely than some other ability score/skill combinations).

There are, in 3.5, several classes and races that grant Cha to AC, several classes that grant Cha to saves, several that grant Cha to (certain) attacks, feats/items to immobilize groups of enemies with Intimidate (a Cha skill), and an entire class built around aiding combat checks with Cha (the Marshal), not to mention Iaijutsu Focus and Bluff to feint. No, Cha is not lacking in the "class feature/weird feat/unusual skill usage" department. If anything, it's one of the stars of stat substitution trickery.

Carl

2013-07-06, 03:41 AM

There are, in 3.5, several classes and races that grant Cha to AC, several classes that grant Cha to saves, several that grant Cha to (certain) attacks, feats/items to immobilize groups of enemies with Intimidate (a Cha skill), and an entire class built around aiding combat checks with Cha (the Marshal), not to mention Iaijutsu Focus and Bluff to feint. No, Cha is not lacking in the "class feature/weird feat/unusual skill usage" department. If anything, it's one of the stars of stat substitution trickery.

In case you weren't aware i'm mostly stuck with core for sources and it's the stuff i'm by far the most familiar with. So Sorc and Bard aside the only other core cha user i'm aware of is the paladin, and they don't get that much out of it. In core Cha is the red headed step child because class features aside it has little to recommend it. Play a class without those class features and there's just no justification for having it. Every other stat, even intelligence, can have an argument made for it, though int for non-int using classes is the second weakest, but it's simple add to skill points gives it better cause to take.

As for your first question, i already answered that several posts back, the basic common definition of Charisma has only a passing relationship with intimidation. Most intimidation is done by threat's or a display of power, that has nothing to do with how charming you can or cannot be.

Vadskye

2013-07-06, 03:47 AM

As for your first question, i already answered that several posts back, the basic common definition of Charisma has only a passing relationship with intimidation. Most intimidation is done by threat's or a display of power, that has nothing to do with how charming you can or cannot be.
Fortunately, Charisma itself has only a passing relationship to how charming you can or cannot be. Charming people is a skill that some, but not all, charismatic people have. Being charismatic makes you better at that, just as being charismatic makes you better at intimidating people. I think the main problem is that your definition of Charisma is more narrow than is best.

That isn't your fault; Charisma has had a long history as a strange stat. Back in 2e, social skills weren't properly defined, so that's what Charisma was defined as. Wisdom included many concepts that we now associated with Charisma - even "guile"! Fortunately, that has changed. I am just nudging that change a little farther along. Basically, Charisma is more broad and nuanced than you are giving it credit for.

After mulling, I'm inclined to say a 4th save may not be such a bad idea, after all. Thinking here in terms of Resist and Avoid, with either turning into Break, if needed, after they fail.

For example:

Fortitude (CON) is used to resist effects to the body. If you fail, you can use it again later to resist successfully (break) the effect.
Reflex (DEX) is used to avoid effects to the body. If you fail, you can use it again to avoid successfully (break) the effect.
Will (CHA) is used to resist effects to the mind. If you fail, you can use it again to resist successfully (break) the effect.
Perception (WIS) is used to avoid effects to the mind. If you fail, you can use it again later to avoid successfully (break) the effect.

I believe this could be a decent meet-in-the-middle approach that can deal with the mentioned scenarios in this thread.

Existing spells could be modified fairly easily to account for these, IMHO, but here I'm going on my charisma-based belief in my suggestion, rather than any actual proof. :smallwink:

-Elrahc
I think I prefer the skill-based approach instead of introducing a fourth save type. It feels very natural to me, and introducing a fourth save is... awkward. What is the difference between giving a class Spot and Listen as class skills and giving a class "Perception" as a good base save? Those feel like the same concept - except that "Perception" as it applies to visual/auditory cues is very different from "Perception" as it applies to recognizing subtle mental manipulations. I don't think I can create a fourth save in an intuitive and consistent way that flows with the rest of the game.

TuggyNE

2013-07-06, 04:54 AM

In case you weren't aware i'm mostly stuck with core for sources and it's the stuff i'm by far the most familiar with. So Sorc and Bard aside the only other core cha user i'm aware of is the paladin, and they don't get that much out of it. In core Cha is the red headed step child because class features aside it has little to recommend it. Play a class without those class features and there's just no justification for having it. Every other stat, even intelligence, can have an argument made for it, though int for non-int using classes is the second weakest, but it's simple add to skill points gives it better cause to take.

Oh, you want Core only? Sure, let's do that.

Wis: Monk's Wis to AC, Monk's Quivering Palm DC (rare), Stunning Fist DC (rare), Sense Motive against feints (rare), Will saves, Spot and Listen (rare), Cleric casting, Druid casting, Paladin casting, Ranger casting, Blackguard casting
Int: Duelist's Int to AC (limited), Assassin's Death Attack DC, Assassin casting, Wizard casting, Loremaster's Lore (rare), Knowledge to identify enemies, Spellcraft to counterspell (rare)
Cha: Blackguard's Cha to saves/Paladin's Cha to saves, Blackguard's Smite/Paladin's Smite, Blackguard's Lay on Hands/Paladin's Lay on Hands, Turn Undead, Shadowdancer's Shadow Illusion SLA DC (rare), Bard casting, Bardic Music, Bluff to feint (rare), Intimidate (rare), Use Magic Device

Now, let's see, which of these has the most uses? Could it be Cha? Why bless me, it would certainly seem so!

The problem with Cha is not that it doesn't have enough possible in-combat uses; it's that its in-combat uses are mostly only worthwhile for a few characters (much like those of the other mental stats) and it has very few crucial out-of-combat uses, unlike the other mental stats.

Carl

2013-07-06, 10:09 AM

Vadskye: I'm guessing either your not a native English speaker or come from an area where the language has evolved very differently from my area, (northern UK).

To say someone has charisma, (or is charismatic for the more common usage), is the same as saying they're charming. They're not just related concepts, they're the same concept expressed diffrently.

@Tuggyne: 2 problems.

1. you missed int's contribution to skill points per level.

2. you totally failed to take account of the relative level of importance of each item on those lists. Anything that provides a permanent passive effect or is a primary caster stat is a lot more valuable than a skill check or the like. And anything that's of note regardless of class is more important still.

Also your final point was just a repeat of mine. Charisma has an extremely small list of high priority features, particularly in comparison to Wisdom, and they're all class specific.

Seharvepernfan

2013-07-06, 10:25 AM

It's probably been said five times by now, but I'm gonna chime in anyway.

Charisma is not willpower, it's force of personality. Think of it as one thing, split into two uses: defensive, and offensive. Wisdom is your defensive willpower, it lets you resist temptations and makes you aware that you're being tricked, whereas charisma is your offensive willpower, it lets you impose your will on the world. Wisdom should be used for will saves.

Elrahc

2013-07-06, 12:19 PM

I think I prefer the skill-based approach instead of introducing a fourth save type. It feels very natural to me, and introducing a fourth save is... awkward. What is the difference between giving a class Spot and Listen as class skills and giving a class "Perception" as a good base save? Those feel like the same concept - except that "Perception" as it applies to visual/auditory cues is very different from "Perception" as it applies to recognizing subtle mental manipulations. I don't think I can create a fourth save in an intuitive and consistent way that flows with the rest of the game.
I gave the Save a poor name, perhaps, but since that mind-save doesn't have a definition, the name may work after that's in place. I was wanting a name that represented the traps and webs of the mind (avoidable).

The concept that I hoped would be recognized was that if the body has two saves to avoid and resist, the mind can have two saves to avoid and resist.

I am not well-read in the D&D semantics enough to discuss the differences between saves and skills, btw, so I won't have a go at that. I would welcome some enlightenment, if anyone cared to shed it.

It's probably been said five times by now, but I'm gonna chime in anyway.

Charisma is not willpower, it's force of personality. Think of it as one thing, split into two uses: defensive, and offensive. Wisdom is your defensive willpower, it lets you resist temptations and makes you aware that you're being tricked, whereas charisma is your offensive willpower, it lets you impose your will on the world. Wisdom should be used for will saves.
I think Wisdom and the Will save is trying to do too much, hence why I'm trying to introduce a 4th save that evens things out. Take the following description from d20SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#enchantment):

Enchantment

Enchantment spells affect the minds of others, influencing or controlling their behavior.

All enchantments are mind-affecting spells. Two types of enchantment spells grant you influence over a subject creature.

Charm

A charm spell changes how the subject views you, typically making it see you as a good friend.

Compulsion

A compulsion spell forces the subject to act in some manner or changes the way her mind works. Some compulsion spells determine the subject’s actions or the effects on the subject, some compulsion spells allow you to determine the subject’s actions when you cast the spell, and others give you ongoing control over the subject.
Charm = Roll Wisdom-based check (Perception of some kind)
Compulsion = Roll Charisma-based check (Willpower)

I think I'm on to something, but I'm perhaps not conveying it properly to others. If you think you see what I'm getting at, don't be shy. Throw in your own ideas that may help flesh it out.

Thanks,

-Elrahc

Ialdabaoth

2013-07-06, 02:40 PM

In that case, I might just take a page from 4E and make them Defenses. So you have four Defense stats:

Fortitude (Con) - physical resistance
Reflex (Dex) - physical avoidance
Willpower (Cha) - mental resistance
Insight (Wis) - mental avoidance

and then AC is based on Fortitude if you're wearing heavy armor, or Reflex if you're wearing light armor.

Elrahc

2013-07-06, 05:15 PM

I'm not familiar with the 4th edition, but seems like I came to a conclusion they did, if those lines are directly from 4th. (I don't have a problem with AC as it is.)

Talya

2013-07-06, 05:21 PM

OP Snipped

I disagree entirely.

The physical and mental ability scores are exact analogs of each other already.

While Charisma is a form of "Willpower," it's offensive willpower, it's the ability to affect the world with your force of personality. Wisdom is defensive willpower, it represents the ability to resist influence over your personality.

This is exactly how the physical ability scores already work.

Think of Charisma as a mental version of Strength. Wisdom is a mental version of Constitution. (And yes, Intelligence is a mental version of Dexterity, as well.)

And no, leadership and personal magnetism are not skills, they're something you either have, or you don't.

Ialdabaoth

2013-07-06, 05:36 PM

I'm not familiar with the 4th edition, but seems like I came to a conclusion they did, if those lines are directly from 4th. (I don't have a problem with AC as it is.)

No, those lines aren't from fourth. What's from fourth is the idea of turning Saves into Defenses.

I.e., instead of having a Saving throw vs. the spell's DC, the spellcaster actually makes an attack roll vs. a DC equal to the appropriate Defense.

TuggyNE

2013-07-06, 06:27 PM

1. you missed int's contribution to skill points per level.

Since this is not directly applicable in combat, no I didn't.

2. you totally failed to take account of the relative level of importance of each item on those lists. Anything that provides a permanent passive effect or is a primary caster stat is a lot more valuable than a skill check or the like. And anything that's of note regardless of class is more important still.

Honestly, I think I did note that some things are pretty rare (i.e., mostly useless), although it's certainly subjective, and I didn't bother to assign any more granular a value than "good/bad". However, note that Cha has several permanent passive effects, and is a primary caster stat for a pair of classes. So I think you're kind of ignoring the actual point of the list; Cha is not lacking in any of the specific, objective categories you've outlined so far (including "combat uses", "combat uses in Core", "permanent passive combat uses in Core", and so on), it's merely underpowered in execution, and much of that is because of its lack of out-of-combat effectiveness (without specifically building for that).

Also your final point was just a repeat of mine. Charisma has an extremely small list of high priority features, particularly in comparison to Wisdom, and they're all class specific.

Wis has exactly one high priority, non-class-specific combat use: Will saves. Int has none at all. Given that, the fact that Cha has no high priority non-class-specific combat uses doesn't look so terrible, especially when you consider that it has a more varied and powerful class-specific set than Int (in Core, it's casting + saves + occasional attacks + occasional healing + occasional AoE-undead-lose vs … casting and AC).

Deepbluediver

2013-07-06, 09:03 PM

I like the idea of having Charisma replace Wisdom for Will saves, but that's because I've got my own magic system where all casters are reliant on both Intellect and Wisdom (for bonus spells and casting rolls, respectively). So this would give Charisma something to do besides be a bonus for Skill checks.

In a regular game, the flavor might fit better, but then it seems to sort of leave Wisdom without much value except to Wisdom-based casters. Ideally, every stat should be able to contribute something to every characters, like Con to HP and Int with skill points. Maybe that's not perfectly possible, but it's what I wish I could figure out a way to do.

For some of the other ideas, I've seen proposals before for letting you add the best of either score to saves (CON/STR for Fort, Int/Cha for Will, etc). I think it would work, but overall I don't really see it changing much. Maybe make a few classes slightly easier to pick dump stats for, but not more than that.

Wisdom to Initiative is something I've proposed before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255385), though not on it's own. I suggested Wisdom (awareness of surroundings) + Dexterity (reaction time) + 1/2 BAB (combat prowess).
If you don't like that, the link has another version where the bonus is based just on class and level, though you could add any other modifiers to it that you want.

Maybe it wouldn't be the perfect fit for fluff, but in terms of making all the stats more equally valuable, I would have no objections picking just Wisdom to add it Initiative. If necessary, we could always create a feat to let Dex either replace Wisdom or also contribute, depending on what seemed the better fit.

I guess overall, these suggestions satisfy one niggling problem, but kind of create another. I'll need to sleep on it some.

Vadskye

2013-07-06, 09:10 PM

In a regular game, the flavor might fit better, but then it seems to sort of leave Wisdom without much value except to Wisdom-based casters. Ideally, every stat should be able to contribute something to every characters, like Con to HP and Int with skill points. Maybe that's not perfectly possible, but it's what I wish I could figure out a way to do.

For some of the other ideas, I've seen proposals before for letting you add the best of either score to saves (CON/STR for Fort, Int/Cha for Will, etc). I think it would work, but overall I don't really see it changing much. Maybe make a few classes slightly easier to pick dump stats for, but not more than that.

Wisdom to Initiative is something I've proposed before (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=255385), though not on it's own. I suggested Wisdom (awareness of surroundings) + Dexterity (reaction time) + 1/2 BAB (combat prowess).
If you don't like that, the link has another version where the bonus is based just on class and level, though you could add any other modifiers to it that you want.

Maybe it wouldn't be the perfect fit for fluff, but in terms of making all the stats more equally valuable, I would have no objections picking just Wisdom to add it Initiative. If necessary, we could always create a feat to let Dex either replace Wisdom or also contribute, depending on what seemed the better fit.

I guess overall, these suggestions satisfy one niggling problem, but kind of create another. I'll need to sleep on it some.
In my system, Wisdom has the following uses:

Half Wisdom is applied to Reflex saves. Wisdom is the perception stat, and seeing threats coming helps you avoid them.
Half Wisdom is applied to initiative checks. Same reasoning.
Wisdom-based skills are some of the most powerful, with the most combat utility: Spot (merged with Search), Listen, Sense Motive, and Spellcraft. Heck, even Heal got a lot more useful.
A high wisdom gives you bonus skill points for Wisdom-based skills.

Wisdom is not a good dump stat. (The "best" dump stat in the system is probably Intelligence, actually.) Taking Will saves away from Wisdom in no way invalidates its usefulness.

I did see an interesting idea, though. What if Wisdom was the stat used for ranged attack rolls by default? It is the perception ability score, after all - and there is precedent from the Zen archery feat.

Xerlith

2013-07-07, 04:25 AM

Wulfram

2013-07-07, 04:55 AM

If you move willpower to CHA, then I think you might as well scrap WIS and divvy up it's stuff between INT and CHA as appropriate.

Deepbluediver

2013-07-07, 10:44 AM

In my system, Wisdom has the following uses:

Half Wisdom is applied to Reflex saves. Wisdom is the perception stat, and seeing threats coming helps you avoid them.
Half Wisdom is applied to initiative checks. Same reasoning.
Wisdom-based skills are some of the most powerful, with the most combat utility: Spot (merged with Search), Listen, Sense Motive, and Spellcraft. Heck, even Heal got a lot more useful.
A high wisdom gives you bonus skill points for Wisdom-based skills.

Wisdom is not a good dump stat. (The "best" dump stat in the system is probably Intelligence, actually.) Taking Will saves away from Wisdom in no way invalidates its usefulness.

I only saw the thread and PDF for your new system after your reply here, so then with all that you are right, Wisdom is certainly not worthless. Does Charisma have a similar altered functionality?

I haven't taken a good look at all your changes yet, but my first thought is that a system with a lot of half-stat cross bonusing isn't terribly newbie-friendly. If it works, then great, but I'd probably want to run people through something simpler rather than smashing them in the face with a wall of numbers their first time out.

I did see an interesting idea, though. What if Wisdom was the stat used for ranged attack rolls by default? It is the perception ability score, after all - and there is precedent from the Zen archery feat.

My first reaction is to say that it seems odd to have a mental stat contribute so heavily to melee combat, but it's not unheard of. Lots of monk-fixes have Wisdom to Attack and/or Damage. My personal preference is to make it either optional or feat-based, like I suggested for initiative.

Though I guess you could give it half your bonus to ranged attack rolls, like you've done with everything else.

If you move willpower to CHA, then I think you might as well scrap WIS and divvy up it's stuff between INT and CHA as appropriate.

Hmm...I think you would need to homebrew some pretty drastic system changes when you start mucking about with the number of basic stats, but I've seen systems that use both more and less. That might make it easier to combine with the earlier suggestion for 4 saves (one for each stat, but then Con is overall health).

Vadskye

2013-07-07, 12:49 PM

This could work, but not as shifting everything to wisdom, but as adding the Wisdom modifier to every ranged attack.

This makes perfect sense - if you are perceptive enough, you can find the most vulnerable spot, but it doesn't mean you can hit it. That is governed by your dexterity - the ability that defines your coordination.

I can see the logic behind this - but at the same time, adding two ability modiifers to the same roll is really mechanically problematic. You could make a similar argument about how attack rolls in melee should really be Strength and Dex, but I think the overall effect on the system not be good. There are some situations where I feel that adding instead of simply taking the higher of the two is appropriate, such as with saving throws. But I think for attack rolls, I am inclined to just take the higher. With that said, I think I would use the same approach as in melee; a character can freely choose to use his Wisdom modifier or his Dexterity modifier, whichever is higher.

If you move willpower to CHA, then I think you might as well scrap WIS and divvy up it's stuff between INT and CHA as appropriate.
I think the game functions best with an ability score devoted to perception. That doesn't fit very well with either Intelligence or Charisma. The role-playing division between Int and Wis has stood for a long time, and I really like it. All I am trying to do is to give Charisma equivalent importance, both mechanically and from an RP perspective, to the other two abilities.

I only saw the thread and PDF for your new system after your reply here, so then with all that you are right, Wisdom is certainly not worthless. Does Charisma have a similar altered functionality?

I haven't taken a good look at all your changes yet, but my first thought is that a system with a lot of half-stat cross bonusing isn't terribly newbie-friendly. If it works, then great, but I'd probably want to run people through something simpler rather than smashing them in the face with a wall of numbers their first time out.

My first reaction is to say that it seems odd to have a mental stat contribute so heavily to melee combat, but it's not unheard of. Lots of monk-fixes have Wisdom to Attack and/or Damage. My personal preference is to make it either optional or feat-based, like I suggested for initiative.
Wisdom is the only ability score with nearly that much cross-stat application. Perception fits naturally into combat in my mind, but I don't see the same logic for Intelligence and Charisma. And I definitely agree that it should be optional. I don't actually want to get rid of Dex-based archers; I just feel that Wisdom fits very naturally into that paradigm as well.

Also, if you want to see my full rules for abilities specifically, I'm testing out some new programs which allowed me to convert what I have into this web page (https://sites.google.com/site/rpgrise/rise-chapters/ch-1---abilities). If that's easier to read than a PDF, let me know, and I can work on converting the other PDFs into web pages.

Hmm...I think you would need to homebrew some pretty drastic system changes when you start mucking about with the number of basic stats, but I've seen systems that use both more and less. That might make it easier to combine with the earlier suggestion for 4 saves (one for each stat, but then Con is overall health).
I the four save system is not a good idea, though. The idea of an "intuition" or "perception" save is trying to encompass two totally separate concepts: the ability to accurately disbelieve illusions, and the ability to recognize unnatural mental influence in one's own head. Yes, they are both perception-based, and Wisdom should contribute to both. But they have a different role in fluff.

If rangers have a high Intuition save, they are very good at recognizing illusions (which makes sense), but are also very good at not being charmed (which makes much less sense). Likewise, if clerics have a low Intuition save, they are bad at recognizing illusions (which makes sense) but are also easy to mentally manipulate (which doesn't make sense).

I could give more examples, but the point is that this fourth save is trying to mash together concepts which don't belong together. That's why I really like the approach discussed earlier involving using Spot/Listen to interact with illusions, and Sense Motive to recognize mental influence.