So Leadership is apparently a Charisma check?

[Jowgen]

Reading Stormwrack: "A humanoid or monstrous humanoid who dons the admiral’s bicorne gains a +5 bonus on Profession (sailor) checks and all Charisma-based checks (including Leadership) as long as it is worn"

... :smallconfused:

So a character's Leadership score is apparently a charisma check. Despite there being no d20 roll. It's a static value (Character Level) + Charisma (+reputation and other circumstance mods)

Does this have implications? In regards to leadership specifically, it for one very much suggests that things like Nymph's kiss add to your leadership score; but that's not what's bothering me, since boosting leadership is one of the easiest things anyway.

There are many things out there that mirror the calculation-path of the Leadership-score. I very well know that, by RAW, most of these things (e.g Lay on Hands pool) aren't considered charisma checks, but then again, Leadership isn't described as such either.

Basically, I'm wondering whether the existence of this items gives grounds for the broadening of what does and what does not qualify as an ability check.


What are people's opinions on this? (no rule 0 or primary sources arguments please)

[Tiri]

I think it means that it gives you a +5 to your Leadership score, as if you were getting it from a high charisma score. It does not change the meaning of 'check' in D&D, as a check, and by extension an ability check, always requires 1d20 to be rolled, which your Leadership score does not. (unless you took 10 on a skill check, but that applies only to skills). Just a typing mistake.

[Psyren]

Well, Leadership "checks" your Charisma when determining your Leadership score. So I think that is what it means there.

[HammeredWharf]

A poorly-written item description in a little-used book doesn't change anything.

[Deadline]

Well, Leadership "checks" your Charisma when determining your Leadership score. So I think that is what it means there.

If that were the case, then a Circlet of Persuasion should bump your Leadership score by +3. I don't think that's the case.

My guess would be on poor wording. i.e. It's saying that it gives you +5 on all Charisma based checks, and additionally gives you +5 to your Leadership score.

[Amphetryon]

A poorly-written item description in a little-used book doesn't change anything.

"Little-used book"? How did you make that determination?

[Tvtyrant]

"Little-used book"? How did you make that determination?

In any sufficiently large group of people someone has read Stormwrack. In any sufficiently large group of people one of their nicknames is little. In any sufficiently large Venn diagram Stormwrack has been little used.

[Psyren]

In any sufficiently large group of people someone has read Stormwrack. In any sufficiently large group of people one of their nicknames is little. In any sufficiently large Venn diagram Stormwrack has been little used.

Hurr hurr, cookie for you :smalltongue:

[atemu1234]

A poorly-written item description in a little-used book doesn't change anything.

And Leadership is core, while the bicorne is not.

[Jowgen]

I guess what I'm looking for is some definitive RAW that directly over-rides the Bicorne's implication. For example, Leadership (in core) never states that the leader ship score qualifies as a "check" of any variety, but it does not make any statement to the contrary either.

What I could find matter are the definitions of an ability check in relation to skill-checks in the DMG, and the slightly more indepth Rules Compendium section. Simply considering these given definitions as exhaustive would obviously get rid of the problem, meaning that if I simply went by "if something doesn't fit this exact description that it isn't the thing" all would be fixed and the Bicorne dismissed.

For the record, I fully acknowledge that that is the reasonable thing to do. I'm not arguing in favour of the Bicorne having real implication. As far as I'm concerned, the intent is clearly that a check requires a d20 roll. Other than the bicorne, I don't know of anything that refers to something without a d20 roll as a check. Rules compendium in particular make this clear.

The whole thing just irks me, is all. :smallannoyed:

Initiative checks, for example, do not get called out as Dex checks in any of the rules text dealing with checks, but get defined as such in their own rules section. They're a slight outlier, which is almost certainly purely a lay-out thing, but still.

*engaging full devil's advocate mode, making it orange because I'm don't think that colour is taken*

Consider this remote possibility. When describing checks, the RC/DMG/SRD do not give an exhaustive definition. Instead, they describe the kind of checks encountered in the basic variety of the game, without special consideration for specific items, feats, class-abilities, etc (as is common in the rules). The roll of a d20 represents the influence of luck on an outcome in any given scenario (it's an obscure explanation, but it does exist). Almost any given check (except CL-,UMD-, and some other exotic checks that carry inherent uncertainty) one can theoretically take 10 on, and there are even examples of checks where one is effectively forced to take 10 (e.g. Creating a Cypher, Complete Adventurer p. 98), so the rolling of a d20 is not an absolute requirement (e.g. it doesn't stop being a check because it lacks a d20/luck factor).

The Admiral's Bicorne incidentally comes out and showcases the non-restrictive nature of the given check-definitions. In leadership, attracting followers is a long-term process; as you're advertizing for people to join you. The Luck factor (i.e. the d20) is removed from this, because it is purely the DM who decides what NPCs you ultimately attract, with the only variable being the time required (which symbolized incidental availability of followers). One might consider the d4 roll the "check" in this context, but that would not fit the RC/DMG/SRD definition any better.


Now here is my wild reasoning:

The real hard requirement for a check is that the outcome at hand must be achievable purely using the "innate abilities" of the character. The roll of a d20 is only required for something to be considered a check IF the related outcome has a considerable luck-factor associated with it. Some of these can be improved by training (e.g. ranks, equipment, certain innate ability enhancing feats). Leadership is a check because it's outcome is chiefly dependent upon an innate quality of the character in question (Charisma and level, with circumstance modifiers in the form of reputation and such). As a counter example, a Paladin's lay on hands ability is not a check, because while it is boosted by innate qualities, it is chiefly dependent upon a class ability (divine-granted power, if you want to go for fluff).

*devil's advocate mode off*



So yeah, its a very "out-there" interpretation of the lay of the rules. I do not personally endorse it, but if anyone happens to know anything that reliably disproves this, I'd be thrilled.

[Jowgen]

To anyone who still cares, just came across the rules for actual leadership-checks on page 156 of Power of Faerun. :smallbiggrin: