Making the dump stats useful

[asorel]

It seems to me that Intelligence and Charisma are rather useless ability scores compared to others with regards to classes that don't rely on these abilities. Every other ability score has some sort of 'universal use' that benefits all players. Strength governs carrying capacity, and while the saving throw isn't as common, it is used against rather gruesome abilities. Dexterity determines Initiative, and is the most common saving throw, if only against direct damage. Constitution governs hit points, whose saving throw is not only relatively common, but is made against rather potent effects. The value of the save is increased further in a caster reliant on Concentration spells. Wisdom is also a common save, and is the source for Perception, arguably the most sought-after skill in the game.

Intelligence and Charsima have...the two least common saves in the game, and skills. Charisma has a chance to get away from this by being a primary ability for a quarter of the classes, but Intelligence is only used by Wizards, and the respective archetypes of Fighter and Rogue.

Regarding Intelligence, an idea I have seen posted elsewhere is to allow a bonus language or tool proficiency for every positive modifier on the initial value at character creation, so that these proficiencies don't stack with ASIs. Per the overall direction 5th edition appears to be taking, characters are not penalized for having a lower score.

Are there any thoughts regarding this change? What would a similar change to Charisma look like?

[Easy_Lee]

Just because INT and CHA saves are rare in the MM doesn't mean they must be rare in your campaigns.

Edit: typo

[asorel]

Just because INT and CHA saves are rare in the MM doesn't mean they must be rare in your campaigns.

Edit: typo

True enough, but taking that route will somewhat truncate the variety of enemies presented, especially if the DM wishes to create a certain theme, or if the game is of the sandbox variety, in which the players choose the general environment. In any case, this doesn't change the fact that Intelligence and Charisma don't grant the various boni that other stats do, such as carrying capacity.

[SharkForce]

the main weird thing with that is that you wind up with scrawny toothpick wizards that know their way around a blacksmith's forge and are expert stonemasons, while the brawny warrior doesn't have a clue how to use either of those things.

generally speaking, if you want intelligence to be more valuable, then whenever someone says "what do i know about <subject>", you should probably just answer with "make a <subject> skill check", and then give them more or less information based on that. well, not necessarily every time, but basically, if you do that more often, it won't make the *entire* group want int, but it will encourage the group to have one, possibly 2 (as insurance against bad rolls) characters with decent int and maybe even proficiency in int-based skills like history and such.

no history skill and 8 int? well, you know about as much about the origins of this dungeon as the average US citizen knows about the hundred-years war. maybe even less, because the name of the hundred years war kinda gives away a piece of information for free. want to know about those runes and you have no arcane skill and 8 int? who knows. maybe they're plain writing. maybe it's a cypher of some kind. maybe they'll turn you inside out if you walk past them. and so on.

if you find that leaves you rolling too often, you can mitigate that somewhat by just keeping their int score in mind when giving information rather than rolling every single time.

alternately, include an illusionist (or group of illusionists) as a recurring villain. they may never dump int again :P

for cha... well, let's just say that sometimes it *really* helps to be able to lie convincingly, and to be able to successfully bribe people.

for example, if you owe half of your recovered loot from adventures to the noble that owns the land (or to the city, state, city-state, kingdom, empire, or whatever other political entity controls the land) as a tax, you may find it useful to be able to persuade a corrupt guard captain to "re-issue" your receipt for the haul you just brought back, or to persuade an honest one that you already paid the tax but some brigands stole the bag you kept your receipts in so you've got some time to have a forgery made or go find that corrupt guard captain to pay for a falsely-dated receipt. for bonus points, include some encounters in your notes that work like this for when the group splits up. if they ask why it comes up only when the group is split up, you can simply explain that it happens when the face is there too, but said face normally deals with it so effectively that rolls are not required (in essence, you took their "passive deception and persuasion" score - which doesn't strictly exist - into account). in contrast, a non-proficient character with an 8 charisma... not quite so good at navigating social challenges.

[Pex]

Charisma skills are important for dealing with NPCs. Not every NPC will be proficient in them either nor Insight so you don't have to be a rogue or bard to use Diplomacy, Intimidation, or Deception. Even if you don't use opposed rolls not every DC is going to be 20.

As for Intelligence, use the 3E rule of letting knowledge skills tell you about monsters you face. Your roll allows you to ask specific questions you want to know. The higher the value the more questions, say one question for DC 10 + one additional question for every 5 there after. If you are proficient in the skill one question starts at DC 5. Still, warriors tend not to bother with Knowledge skills. Also allow Survival skill to be used for this, explained away by tales told of others who survived encounters with the creature in question.

[asorel]

Charisma skills are important for dealing with NPCs. Not every NPC will be proficient in them either nor Insight so you don't have to be a rogue or bard to use Diplomacy, Intimidation, or Deception. Even if you don't use opposed rolls not every DC is going to be 20.

As for Intelligence, use the 3E rule of letting knowledge skills tell you about monsters you face. Your roll allows you to ask specific questions you want to know. The higher the value the more questions, say one question for DC 10 + one additional question for every 5 there after. If you are proficient in the skill one question starts at DC 5. Still, warriors tend not to bother with Knowledge skills. Also allow Survival skill to be used for this, explained away by tales told of others who survived encounters with the creature in question.

I am aware of these uses of the abilities, and don't deny their value. However, they are situational, and the other abilities have checks and skills associated with them as well. Granted, the other skills aren't quite as versatile as these, but I hesitate to assert that this versatility is enough to offset the ancillary benefits that are provided by other abilities.

[Slipperychicken]

generally speaking, if you want intelligence to be more valuable, then whenever someone says "what do i know about <subject>", you should probably just answer with "make a <subject> skill check", and then give them more or less information based on that. well, not necessarily every time, but basically, if you do that more often, it won't make the *entire* group want int, but it will encourage the group to have one, possibly 2 (as insurance against bad rolls) characters with decent int and maybe even proficiency in int-based skills like history and such.


Building off this, intelligence is exactly as useful as the DM wants it to be. If you want intelligence to be good, then call for intelligence checks more frequently (whenever a piece of information would be helpful), have an appropriate DC set, and give the players useful, relevant information if they succeed (for monsters, this means vulnerabilities and strengths. for non-combat things, it basically means they know what will and won't work). A lot of DMs are uncomfortable with doing this because they either don't have the information prepared or feel like they're diminishing the game's challenge by "giving hints for free", but doing this is a realistic way to make the stat useful. Many characters in fiction are able to use their prior knowledge and wits to overcome challenges.


Similarly, charisma is as useful as you make it. If you're a "roleplay-not-rollplay" kind of guy and either never call for social skills or don't let them have any real effect, then charisma is going to be crappy unless it's a casting stat. If you want charisma to be useful, then let it impact social interactions in a meaningful way. Maybe one can get better prices on items, higher quest rewards (not even just from haggling; maybe the questgiver just likes the PC and thinks he deserves something extra), more trust from NPCs, or chances to avoid fights. Similarly, poor social skills can result in the opposite effect (worse prices, lower rewards, less trust, harder to talk out of fights). Obviously, a fight avoided through charisma should grant an experience award, just like fighting would have given.


tl;dr: To make these stats useful, let them do what they do IRL.

[Ralanr]

the main weird thing with that is that you wind up with scrawny toothpick wizards that know their way around a blacksmith's forge and are expert stonemasons, while the brawny warrior doesn't have a clue how to use either of those things.

generally speaking, if you want intelligence to be more valuable, then whenever someone says "what do i know about <subject>", you should probably just answer with "make a <subject> skill check", and then give them more or less information based on that. well, not necessarily every time, but basically, if you do that more often, it won't make the *entire* group want int, but it will encourage the group to have one, possibly 2 (as insurance against bad rolls) characters with decent int and maybe even proficiency in int-based skills like history and such.

no history skill and 8 int? well, you know about as much about the origins of this dungeon as the average US citizen knows about the hundred-years war. maybe even less, because the name of the hundred years war kinda gives away a piece of information for free. want to know about those runes and you have no arcane skill and 8 int? who knows. maybe they're plain writing. maybe it's a cypher of some kind. maybe they'll turn you inside out if you walk past them. and so on.

if you find that leaves you rolling too often, you can mitigate that somewhat by just keeping their int score in mind when giving information rather than rolling every single time.

alternately, include an illusionist (or group of illusionists) as a recurring villain. they may never dump int again :P

for cha... well, let's just say that sometimes it *really* helps to be able to lie convincingly, and to be able to successfully bribe people.

for example, if you owe half of your recovered loot from adventures to the noble that owns the land (or to the city, state, city-state, kingdom, empire, or whatever other political entity controls the land) as a tax, you may find it useful to be able to persuade a corrupt guard captain to "re-issue" your receipt for the haul you just brought back, or to persuade an honest one that you already paid the tax but some brigands stole the bag you kept your receipts in so you've got some time to have a forgery made or go find that corrupt guard captain to pay for a falsely-dated receipt. for bonus points, include some encounters in your notes that work like this for when the group splits up. if they ask why it comes up only when the group is split up, you can simply explain that it happens when the face is there too, but said face normally deals with it so effectively that rolls are not required (in essence, you took their "passive deception and persuasion" score - which doesn't strictly exist - into account). in contrast, a non-proficient character with an 8 charisma... not quite so good at navigating social challenges.

These same scrawny wizards can also keep up with heavy armored fighters with full dash. The fighters speed wouldn't increase out of the armor.

And no I don't think they would use an adrenaline rush (action surge) to win a race against a wizard unless the situation was dire.

[coredump]

You seem to be heavily favoring combat-related uses of the abilities. If you want Int and Cha to be more important, have them play a larger role. In your campaigns.

[goto124]

What about the 'party face' issue, where one person gets all the Cha, everyone else dumps it and relys on that one person to do the talking? Similar for Int, so that the one person gets all the knowledge and gives it to the rest of the party?

Cha has a special issue - it's limited by the player's RL Cha. If the PC has sky-high Cha, but the player's is rock-bottom, when it comes to talking to the king how is the player supposed to know what to tell the king? (Combat-based stats don't break versimilitude nearly as easily as Cha.) Sure the other player(s) could help, but then it feels like the other player(s) should be the one(s) playing the High-Cha PC. I won't want to talk, because I don't want my low RL Cha to drag the entire party down.

And if someone dumps Cha, there's the possibility that the person doesn't want to RP the talkative parts that much anyway. Should we force her?

Cha can be highly situational stat, which is why there's Cha-based spellcasting. So that the High-Cha party face can do resonably well in combat.

[asorel]

You seem to be heavily favoring combat-related uses of the abilities. If you want Int and Cha to be more important, have them play a larger role. In your campaigns.


What about the 'party face' issue, where one person gets all the Cha, everyone else dumps it and relys on that one person to do the talking? Similar for Int, so that the one person gets all the knowledge and gives it to the rest of the party?

Cha has a special issue - it's limited by the player's RL Cha. If the PC has sky-high Cha, but the player's is rock-bottom, when it comes to talking to the king how is the player supposed to know what to tell the king? (Combat-based stats don't break versimilitude nearly as easily as Cha.) Sure the other player(s) could help, but then it feels like the other player(s) should be the one(s) playing the High-Cha PC. I won't want to talk, because I don't want my low RL Cha to drag the entire party down.

And if someone dumps Cha, there's the possibility that the person doesn't want to RP the talkative parts that much anyway. Should we force her?

Cha can be highly situational stat, which is why there's Cha-based spellcasting. So that the High-Cha party face can do resonably well in combat.

In addition to the issue outlined above, I'm not looking to engineer a campaign where INT and CHA play a significant role. Rather, I am looking to 'balance' the abilities mechanically with the other scores, which ideally means creating a semi-unique bonus for each ability that is useful, to some degree or another, for any given player. Not necessarily the same degree for every configuration, but some degree nonetheless. Higher initiative is useful for just about everyone, as is having more HP. Knowledge and social proficiencies, however, are only truly beneficial for characters focused on that stat.

[Naanomi]

I informed my group that I would be using Investigation for some of the things that Perception wants to cover (before making their characters) and I saw quite a few more 10-12s in Intelligence since then. I've never had much of a problem with Charisma skills, but the 'party face' concept can be a non-issue in group situations where one person can't cover everyone (who cares how friendly the Bard is at the party if the Barbarian keeps insulting everyone and belching all night)

[SharkForce]

In addition to the issue outlined above, I'm not looking to engineer a campaign where INT and CHA play a significant role. Rather, I am looking to 'balance' the abilities mechanically with the other scores, which ideally means creating a semi-unique bonus for each ability that is useful, to some degree or another, for any given player. Not necessarily the same degree for every configuration, but some degree nonetheless. Higher initiative is useful for just about everyone, as is having more HP. Knowledge and social proficiencies, however, are only truly beneficial for characters focused on that stat.

only a problem if the person with high int never rolls low, and the party never ever under any circumstances splits up.

with two people that have decent int and knowledge skills, you have two shots at rolling well to know things. with several people who each devote a bit of resources to being knowledgeable, you will have a better chance than one person to have a high roll, because for the majority of the game your roll has more of an impact than your bonus.

with charisma, like i said: not every charisma-related event has to happen when the entire party is around. but if you don't like putting in the occasional social encounter when the group is split up, you could try the old stand-by of pointing out that charisma is also your presence. so when the group accomplishes something... it's gonna charismatic mccharmingface the bard and... uhhh... those... other people... you know... the ones with the things and stuff... who did it. there's, like, some guy who has like, swords. or maybe it's an axe. and i think one of the other ones is sorta nature-y?

basically, have NPCs talk about them the way they probably talk about your main NPCs (what was the name of that guy with the long beard again?) and basically give them no respect whatsoever.

[Pex]

It's also important not to force players to place their ability scores where you as DM want. It's their character. If it bothers you, general you not anyone in particular, as DM that a player puts an 8 in Intelligence and/or Charisma, it really comes down to tough noogies. It's nice to increase the value of Intelligence and Charisma so that those players who need those scores for game mechanics of their character get Nice Things, but you shouldn't force the barbarian player to have only a 14 Strength instead of 16 because you want him to have at least a 12 in Intelligence to make you feel better.

If a player character has an 8 Intelligence, yes he's going to have trouble with illusions. It's not a problem every once in a while an enemy uses illusions against the party. It is a problem to purposely set a higher percentage of illusion users in the game to teach the player a lesson for the audacity of dumping Intelligence the "minmaxing rollplaying munchkin".

[Slipperychicken]

Going along with the charisma thing, you could bring back reaction rolls, but use the party's average charisma rather than just the leader's score. Basically, when the NPCs' reaction to the party is not certain, you'd take the average of the party's charisma modifiers and use it to roll on a table (I like the one ACKS has; 2d6+Cha: 2 or less is hostile/attacks, 3-5 is unfriendly/may attack, 6-8 is neutral, 9-11 is indifferent, and 12+ is helpful) to determine NPCs' first impression. That means everyone has an incentive to not dump charisma so they're not universally hated or shot on sight. When the reaction is obvious (i.e. palace guards find the PCs standing over the princess' dead body with a bloody knife in their hands), then you don't need to roll on a table.



with charisma, like i said: not every charisma-related event has to happen when the entire party is around. but if you don't like putting in the occasional social encounter when the group is split up, you could try the old stand-by of pointing out that charisma is also your presence. so when the group accomplishes something... it's gonna charismatic mccharmingface the bard and... uhhh... those... other people... you know... the ones with the things and stuff... who did it. there's, like, some guy who has like, swords. or maybe it's an axe. and i think one of the other ones is sorta nature-y?

They wouldn't waste that much time on it. The group name would be more like "Handsome McCharmingface and His Dour Ugly Band".

[asorel]

I'm not sure if I was clear enough in the OP, but my issue isn't players using some abilities more than others, nor am I trying to force the use of INT or CHA. All I wanted to do was create a mechanical system which gave universal advantages to INT and CHA. I am not attempting to do this to directly encourage players not dumping these scores, I merely want to make them on par with other abilities, from a mechanical standpoint. As I mentioned in the OP, for example, by giving bonus tool or language (not skill) profs for INT mod value.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not sure if I was clear enough in the OP, but my issue isn't players using some abilities more than others, nor am I trying to force the use of INT or CHA. All I wanted to do was create a mechanical system which gave universal advantages to INT and CHA. I am not attempting to do this to directly encourage players not dumping these scores, I merely want to make them on par with other abilities, from a mechanical standpoint. As I mentioned in the OP, for example, by giving bonus tool or language (not skill) profs for INT mod value.

From a mechanical standpoint, all of the abilities are already on par with each other. They all do things that other abilities don't do, allowing one to pass relevant saves and use relevant skills. The usefulness of intellect and charisma depends on how often your players need those skills, your players' class selections, and how often the saves come up.

From a usage standpoint, charisma is used more often than strength which is used a little more often than intellect. This is not because intellect is the weakest, but because it has the fewest classes who rely on it as their primary statistic. Charisma is used by three different caster classes, a half caster, and is even tangentially used by some archetypes.

So I'm really not sure why you feel that these attributes need to be buffed.

[asorel]

From a mechanical standpoint, all of the abilities are already on par with each other. They all do things that other abilities don't do, allowing one to pass relevant saves and use relevant skills. The usefulness of intellect and charisma depends on how often your players need those skills, your players' class selections, and how often the saves come up.

From a usage standpoint, charisma is used more often than strength which is used a little more often than intellect. This is not because intellect is the weakest, but because it has the fewest classes who rely on it as their primary statistic. Charisma is used by three different caster classes, a half caster, and is even tangentially used by some archetypes.

So I'm really not sure why you feel that these attributes need to be buffed.

I'll admit I haven't looked very deeply into the balance, but I've noticed that most of the other abilities have "universal" benefits that aren't directly tied to skills--STR has carry capacity, DEX has initiative, CON has HP, and so forth. I wanted to implement a similar "universal" attribute for INT and possibly CHA.

[Easy_Lee]

I'll admit I haven't looked very deeply into the balance, but I've noticed that most of the other abilities have "universal" benefits that aren't directly tied to skills--STR has carry capacity, DEX has initiative, CON has HP, and so forth. I wanted to implement a similar "universal" attribute for INT and possibly CHA.

Got it. The other attributes are more tied to combat, while intellect and charisma are tied to social situations. I mean, how much HP you have isn't going to affect your chances of getting a governor to go along with your plans (unless you invite him out drinking, maybe) or investigating him and figuring out that he's lying. It's really up to the DM to make these attributes useful, whether players have the requisite skills or not.

I can easily see charisma and intellect competitions being used in a debate.

[Logosloki]

A good way to fix this would be to separate skill and attribute. Or to separate attribute and combat. Dump stating will always be around as longs players feel it necessary to pick attributes based on combat as opposed to skills.

[Easy_Lee]

A good way to fix this would be to separate skill and attribute. Or to separate attribute and combat. Dump stating will always be around as longs players feel it necessary to pick attributes based on combat as opposed to skills.

Right. That would take a pretty hefty overhaul, though.

In the meantime, OP, if you have a very combat-heavy campaign with not much roleplay, consider letting intellect and charisma be used in place of wisdom for perception checks. That devalues wisdom a bit, but it also lets these two skills have more of a dungeon use. That said, the clever player will still find ways to use investigation, arcana, intimidation, and so on in a dungeon.

[Naanomi]

Part of the difficulty with Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom is that the in-game stats only take you as far as your real-life stats in many cases. How many GMs give a math-based puzzle to solve, and the party Wizard with 39084 IQ can't guess the answer because the player himself cannot? Or watch the Bard make an ass of himself to the king because the real player can't piece together something non-insulting to say? I can't count the number of times I've seen paragons of Wisdom make the worst decisions... and yet no GM makes a player lift a heavy thing before their character can use their Strength stat.

I think that GMs need to get in the habit of allowing people to fall back on their in-game statistics in situations they are called upon to really let those stats shine.

[Dimers]

My best response is, let the players decide what stats their characters ought to have, instead of rolling or point-buying, and you won't end up with dump stats. (Unless the players WANT dump stats, of course, for funsies.) But that doesn't exactly address your clarified question, how to give Int/Cha mechanical benefits.


Knowledge and social proficiencies, however, are only truly beneficial for characters focused on that stat.

3e's knowledge devotion feat did wonders for Intelligence mechanically. Make up a feat or alternate feature for a few classes with prerequisites that orient it toward nonwizards ... maybe design a similar thing for skills, such that knowing more about ancillary stuff around you makes you better at using your existing skills.

4e made good use of Charisma for many leader classes via morale effects, and 3e hinted at it in classes like bard and marshall. Grant morale bonuses to the teammates of a charismatic character -- or maybe let them grant bonuses as a bonus action, that sort of thing. Again, it's best if you can select prereqs so as to give the most benefit to the classes that don't already use Charisma.


charismatic mccharmingface the bard and... uhhh... those... other people... you know... the ones with the things and stuff... who did it. there's, like, some guy who has like, swords. or maybe it's an axe. and i think one of the other ones is sorta nature-y? basically, have NPCs talk about them the way they probably talk about your main NPCs (what was the name of that guy with the long beard again?) and basically give them no respect whatsoever.

I AM TETSUJIN! (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=447)

[Kryx]

From a mechanical standpoint, all of the abilities are already on par with each other.

That's not true. Dex/con/wis are mechanically the best choices unless your class depends on different stats for casting/attacking. That's simply from saves alone. imo dex/con/wis > str > cha > int in terms of saves.

And as the op has pointed out they also have many other benefits. Initiative, higher ac, more hp, better perception are all useful for everyone. Being able to convince a guard or know a creature only requires 1 pc to be good at it.

[Sindeloke]

imo dex/con/wis > str > cha > int in terms of saves.

I would say not just in terms of saves, but generally. Well, I would contend that dex > con/wis > str > cha > int, but it's pretty close.

One possible tweak is one that someone mentioned in the last go-round about whether str > dex is universal truth, which would be using Intelligence for initiative instead of Dexterity. It's reasonably justifiable fluff-wise, since quick thinking is just as important to reacting to events as quick movement. It's something everybody wants. It doesn't hurt Dexterity any to lose it, because Dexterity is already by far the strongest ability (still governing AC, stealth, and acrobatics, one of the three main saves, and two out of the only four weapons worth using).

It does make Champion slightly weaker, but he has plenty of feats to throw away on Alert if he wants, so no big.

[Kryx]

whether str > dex is universal truth
We should avoid the whole Dex > Str conversation as it could go pages.
My short summary: Str does great damage w/ polearm and GWF. It has better AC than dex due to heavy armor. Dex has init and it's save is more valuable (though I find str to be quite common). Overall I think they're very close in power for different roles. Some roles want strength, some want dex. It's about equal in my experience.

[goto124]

the party never ever under any circumstances splits up.

Never split the party!

[Logosloki]

Right. That would take a pretty hefty overhaul, though.

In the meantime, OP, if you have a very combat-heavy campaign with not much roleplay, consider letting intellect and charisma be used in place of wisdom for perception checks. That devalues wisdom a bit, but it also lets these two skills have more of a dungeon use. That said, the clever player will still find ways to use investigation, arcana, intimidation, and so on in a dungeon.

There are two hobo fixes that don't require much in terms of work but do in terms of that lovely term 'sacrificing sacred cows'. The first would be simply to give the players two sets of attributes - one for in combat and one for out of combat. This allows you to use out of combat skills the way you want to (such as the charismatic fighter) while retaining in combat capabilities. The problem with this is arguments on when it is combat and when it isn't and players having to track (maybe) a different set of six numbers for in/out combat.

The second, would be to allow your players to choose their primary stat for the purposes of spellcasting and attack/damage. This might kill strength as a primary attribute as Dex does it all for a martial character in this scenario (though Str would still be an important secondary attribute for carry, str saves and str skills). This would also probably invalidate the invocation that bladelocks get which allows them to use cha as damage since they would probably be using dex for casting as that gives them that all in one shop. This would also invalidate finesse as a weapon attribute.

[coredump]

I'll admit I haven't looked very deeply into the balance, but I've noticed that most of the other abilities have "universal" benefits that aren't directly tied to skills--STR has carry capacity, DEX has initiative, CON has HP, and so forth. I wanted to implement a similar "universal" attribute for INT and possibly CHA.But most of those are not 'universal' benefits, they are 'combat' benefits. Your Init score has very little benefit when convincing the Baron to let you cross his lands, or when researching ways of defeating a Lich.

There are plenty of times when Cha or Int are very useful, if your campaign is not using those opportunities, it would explain why they are not 'balanced' in your campaign.

[asorel]

But most of those are not 'universal' benefits, they are 'combat' benefits. Your Init score has very little benefit when convincing the Baron to let you cross his lands, or when researching ways of defeating a Lich.

There are plenty of times when Cha or Int are very useful, if your campaign is not using those opportunities, it would explain why they are not 'balanced' in your campaign.

I only meant 'universal' in the sense that they have a distinct benefit for nearly any given character.

[PotatoGolem]

I think the reason the stats are like this is because WOTC (from what they released about changing classes) appears to think about the game as three "pillars": combat, exploration, and social interaction, and assumes that each one is about equal. INT and CHA are not great in the combat pillar because they're awesome in the other two pillars. The social pillar is mostly CHA- based, with INT and WIS also being strong. Exploration is basically WIS, INT, and a little CON (for not dying of dehydration/cold/heatstroke/whatever). My guess would be that they made INT and CHA less useful in combat because they're more useful in other parts of the game, and WOTC possibly under-values how much combat is in the game.

On a personal game note, my players have come to realize how important knowledge skills and INT are after missing out on important information and having a much harder time as a result. If your game includes reasonable out of combat challenges, INT and CHA can be much more important.

[Rfkannen]

felt like mentioning that this thread inspired me to make a new class; http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?413087-new-class-The-intellectual-a-int-based-noncaster&p=19197163#post19197163

but yeah I agree with the idea that if you have a good amount of non combat things in the game they will become very important. I think it is fair to say that charisma is the most importatn stat in games I play.

[Ralanr]

This thread wants me to take the skilled feat and give my 12 int barbarian prof in investigation, then use it in any situation where my party is trapped or needs to find something in the room.

[goto124]

So. HOW does a DM get round to creating reasonable situations where Int and Cha are important?

Especially the bit about social situations, and the disconnect between ingame Cha and RL Cha.

-rolls Diplomancy- 'After modifiers, that's... 18! Cool!'
'So what do you say to the king?'
-blank stare- '...'

[Easy_Lee]

So. HOW does a DM get round to creating reasonable situations where Int and Cha are important?

Especially the bit about social situations, and the disconnect between ingame Cha and RL Cha.

-rolls Diplomancy- 'After modifiers, that's... 18! Cool!'
'So what do you say to the king?'
-blank stare- '...'

Whatever you do, just add "flamboyantly" or "pensively" to the end of it and you've probably got your charisma and intellect covered.

[SharkForce]

So. HOW does a DM get round to creating reasonable situations where Int and Cha are important?

Especially the bit about social situations, and the disconnect between ingame Cha and RL Cha.

-rolls Diplomancy- 'After modifiers, that's... 18! Cool!'
'So what do you say to the king?'
-blank stare- '...'

you instead ask what their desired outcome is. just like you don't ask them to demonstrate how to stab a kobold in the gut before letting them make an attack roll, or ask them to demonstrate that you can dig up worms and eat them raw before allowing them to make a survival check when their character is starving.

then, based on their roll, you decide how effective they are.

[Slipperychicken]

So. HOW does a DM get round to creating reasonable situations where Int and Cha are important?

Especially the bit about social situations, and the disconnect between ingame Cha and RL Cha.

-rolls Diplomancy- 'After modifiers, that's... 18! Cool!'
'So what do you say to the king?'
-blank stare- '...'

-rolls disable device- 'After modifiers, that's... 18! Cool!'
'So what do you do with the trap?'
-blank stare- '...'

[Anlashok]

I think part of the problem is a systemic one unfortunately.

Even discounting the issues with Charisma and Intelligence, 5e has the issue of most classes being really DAD: You get your primary attribute as high as possible... and then put anything else into Constitution. Having a decent score in Wisdom is nice, but it's basically just those two.

The martial spellcasters and battlemaster and monk are slightly better, needing some investment in a second stat in addition to their primary and constitution.

But I think that's a big part of the problem.

Sort of a strange one too, because a lot of people didn't like how 4e marginalized stats and 5e actually takes it a step further

[PotatoGolem]

Making INT and CHA more important is pretty much a matter of requiring more skill/ability rolls. Make Knowledge checks actually mean something. Tell the character the monster's vulnerabilities, let them get the inside scoop on how that enemy army normally operates and how to disrupt it, etc. Similarly, make the players make CHA-based interaction rolls. In the campaign I'm playing in, my paladin got us the main plot three levels early and has skipped (or made easier) a lot of really really tough fights through Persuasion. In general, I find that letting charismatic characters recruit allies and helpers to fight/work for them really increases the value of CHA.

I'm with you on player vs PC stats though. We had a campaign with a purely diplomacy-focused party face whose player is incredibly shy and quiet (even with the rest of the group), and it was tough, both for her and for the rest of the party. Likewise, I've been at AL tables where the super-intelligent character doesn't quite match his player (and quite often the reverse, where a smart player can't help but play his 8 INT character as smart). There's no real good solution to it that I can think of, but I'd love to hear some.

[Ralanr]

Or the player describes their actions before rolling persuasion and such. Making situations where the NPC doesn't agree.

Like real life

[coredump]

You need to describe your character's actions, you don't need to actually 'do' your characters actions.
When searching a room you may "I want to look under the rugs and try and move the bookshelves and things against the wall to look for a secret door"
Then the DM decides if you need to roll. You don't have to actually describe what you do to the bookshelf and wall sconce etc.

"I want to get the Baron to let us pass through, so I want to remind him about his agreements with the Duke and how important out mission is to him. I will also hint towards the riches we may be bringing back to his lands" Then the DM decides if you need to roll.

[coredump]

I only meant 'universal' in the sense that they have a distinct benefit for nearly any given character.
Yes, but only during combat.

Likewise, charisma will help nearly every character when social interactions, and Int will help nearly any character when trying to remember things, investigate, etc.


If the only thing a character needs to worry about is combat, then that is all the player will worry about.

[Ralanr]

I'm surprised cha is still considered a dump stat since up to four classes use it as their main stat.

Int hasn't always been a combat stat. It might be because of habit, but I'm more focused on using my intelligence in combat rather than my character's.

[weaseldust]

You can let a player use intelligence for lots of things if they roleplay it right. Say you have two rogues trying to leap from a rooftop onto a wagon full of straw. The first rogue is very agile: they instinctively leap the right distance and use their dexterity to make an acrobatics check to land on the wagon. The second rogue is less agile but very smart: they carefully calculate the necessary trajectory and use their intelligence to make the acrobatics check instead. Both are allowed by the rules (the association of acrobatics with dexterity is a suggestion, not a constraint) and the adventurer who overcomes obstacles by using their wits is a common enough cultural archetype to deserve to be accommodated in the game.

Edit: I meant to add that, if you want a non-skill use for intelligence, you could tie it to being able to use mechanisms and tools, including magic items, effectively. E.g. you could insist that characters can only add their proficiency bonus when using a magic item if they have learned how to use it properly, and it takes less time to gain proficiency when you have a high intelligence score (the time could be 3 weeks minus 1 day for each point of intelligence, or whatever). Or it could be that simply attuning to the item also requires an amount of time depending on your intelligence. The same could go for learning to use non-magical devices, like dwarven rock drills, or mechanical harps, or siege weapons.

[Naanomi]

Int hasn't always been a combat stat. It might be because of habit, but I'm more focused on using my intelligence in combat rather than my character's.
Int gets that treatment out of combat a lot as well. Got a clever puzzle or riddle to solve: I'll bet the GM wants *you*, the player, to solve it... not your supergenius wizard to make a roll.

[Ralanr]

Int gets that treatment out of combat a lot as well. Got a clever puzzle or riddle to solve: I'll bet the GM wants *you*, the player, to solve it... not your supergenius wizard to make a roll.

Yeah, ran into that when I had people try and solve a puzzle I made. They didn't even bother to roll knowledge checks (I'm glad they didn't since it wasn't the point. But it dawns on me that should have been a response).

Role playing int in it of itself can be hard as there are no real comparisons on what each level of int means (besides 8 being no teaching and 10 being basic teaching). My barb has an int of 12 (rolled really lucky) and I've mainly just combined it with his 14 wis so that he can read situations easier.

[asorel]

Yeah, ran into that when I had people try and solve a puzzle I made. They didn't even bother to roll knowledge checks (I'm glad they didn't since it wasn't the point. But it dawns on me that should have been a response).

Role playing int in it of itself can be hard as there are no real comparisons on what each level of int means (besides 8 being no teaching and 10 being basic teaching). My barb has an int of 12 (rolled really lucky) and I've mainly just combined it with his 14 wis so that he can read situations easier.

I work under the assumption that your INT score is approximately equivalent to your IQ divided by 10. A score of 8, for example, is synonymous with Forrest Gump.

[Naanomi]

I work under the assumption that your INT score is approximately equivalent to your IQ divided by 10. A score of 8, for example, is synonymous with Forrest Gump.
I tend to use a statstical model comparing 3d6 odds with the Weschler, so a 8 Int is about 88 IQ... On the low end of normal, not enough to be considered impaired. Forrest Gump officially had 75 IQ (on the Stanford Binet) for what it matters.

Of course low INt can also mean uneducated, willfully ignorant, and a variety of other things besides just raw IQ

[asorel]

I tend to use a statstical model comparing 3d6 odds with the Weschler, so a 8 Int is about 88 IQ... On the low end of normal, not enough to be considered impaired. Forrest Gump officially had 75 IQ (on the Stanford Binet) for what it matters.

Of course low INt can also mean uneducated, willfully ignorant, and a variety of other things besides just raw IQ

For Knowledge checks specifically, Intelligence represents acquired knowledge rather than analytical knowledge, yes. The two aren't perfectly synonymous, but it provides a good baseline for estimation.

[Mandragola]

My suggestion is to use int for initiative instead of dex. I think the person who reacts first should be the quickest thinking person, not the most agile.

Or at least you can rationalise it that way, and it would help to balance out the fact that dex does too much and int doesn't do enough.

[Easy_Lee]

My suggestion is to use int for initiative instead of dex. I think the person who reacts first should be the quickest thinking person, not the most agile.

Or at least you can rationalise it that way, and it would help to balance out the fact that dex does too much and int doesn't do enough.

Or you could use the higher of the two for initiative, if it's a concern.

[Mandragola]

Or you could use the higher of the two for initiative, if it's a concern.

Yeah there are various ways you could cut it. Highest of the two, sum of the two or just int - or leave it as it is. Personally I'd use int alone because I think dex already does a bit too many things, which makes dex-based characters a bit too good. It kind of feels like the second stat for characters like wizards, and even some kinds of clerics, which feels a bit weird to me.

[Psikerlord]

You seem to be heavily favoring combat-related uses of the abilities. If you want Int and Cha to be more important, have them play a larger role. In your campaigns.

This. Cha is very important anytime you want to persuade someone. Int is important for recalling lore/tips and seeing through illusions.

[SharkForce]

You need to describe your character's actions, you don't need to actually 'do' your characters actions.
When searching a room you may "I want to look under the rugs and try and move the bookshelves and things against the wall to look for a secret door"
Then the DM decides if you need to roll. You don't have to actually describe what you do to the bookshelf and wall sconce etc.

"I want to get the Baron to let us pass through, so I want to remind him about his agreements with the Duke and how important out mission is to him. I will also hint towards the riches we may be bringing back to his lands" Then the DM decides if you need to roll.

really? if you tell your DM that you're searching the room, he's going to assume that you're not looking under or behind anything unless you specifically say so?

[Slipperychicken]

really? if you tell your DM that you're searching the room, he's going to assume that you're not looking under or behind anything unless you specifically say so?

Baffling as it might sound, that's actually advice given in the PHB, page 178, under the sidebar "Finding a Hidden Object". I had to read that paragraph a few times myself, since that's such horrible advice.

So yeah, the PHB pretty much recommends expecting players to read the DM's mind and spell out every corner of the room they want to search.

[SharkForce]

Baffling as it might sound, that's actually advice given in the PHB, page 178, under the sidebar "Finding a Hidden Object". I had to read that paragraph a few times myself, since that's such horrible advice.

So yeah, the PHB pretty much recommends expecting players to read the DM's mind and spell out every corner of the room they want to search.

i'm curious as to what precisely those people think "searching" means, in that case.

[Slipperychicken]

i'm curious as to what precisely those people think "searching" means, in that case.

It seems like an exercise in making players read the DM's mind to proceed. If you ask me, I would assume that manipulating furniture, opening drawers, looking behind paintings, and checking under rugs would already be covered by Intelligence(Investigation).

[Daishain]

It seems like an exercise in making players read the DM's mind to proceed. If you ask me, I would assume that manipulating furniture, opening drawers, looking behind paintings, and checking under rugs would already be covered by Intelligence(Investigation).
It also requires that a DM be overly detailed in describing nearly every single room. If something is hidden behind/under/within something that was never described, the player's have every right to be put off. If just the object in question is described, the players know exactly where to look. If only one room is given the full treatment of describing its contents, the players know something special is up and will continue to search.

It just makes more work for everyone, and assuming that seasoned adventurers are going to at least hit the obvious hiding spots without explicitly detailing each action is such a simple thing to do.

[Submortimer]

Int - Aside from a couple saves and the Knowledge skills, where you get the most mileage out of INT is really Investigation. This is one of those skills, like perception, that I tend to try and have on nearly every character, if for no other reason than finding hidden stuff is almost always helpful.

Cha - As stated above, if you have no charisma, you're not convincing anyone of anything. That being said, like you mentioned with Strength, there aren't a lot of saves that targets charisma but the ones that do REALLY suck if you fail. Most of those abilities are related to possession, and no one needs to tell you that being possessed by a ghost or other spectre isn't the best idea.

[asorel]

It seems like the primary argument for keeping INT and CHA as-is is the skills dependent on these abilities. While it's true that these skills are high in number compared to those derived from other abilities, and that the versatility of these skills is also quite high, my concern has never been that these abilities are useless or underwhelming to those who wish to use them. Rather, I lamented the lack of unique benefits attached to these skills that would be useful to any character. It was pointed out, and correctly so, that the boni provided by other abilities were largely combat-focused, and that INT and CHA were meant to uphold the other two pillars of D&D. However, the other 'universal' abilities being based on combat does not imply that the INT and CHA equivalents must be as well. For instance, gaining additional tool or language proficiencies from Intelligence could be a unique benefit of that ability, while simultaneously being one almost irrelevant in combat. I'm having trouble attempting to create such an ability for Charisma, however.

[goto124]

really? if you tell your DM that you're searching the room, he's going to assume that you're not looking under or behind anything unless you specifically say so?

My character has the high Int and Ranks in Search, not me. She should be able to know where to search (behind the bookshelves, under the bed, in that small hole that wasn't spotted for a while, etc) even if I don't.

Same thing for Cha. If my PC has higher Cha than I am, she knows to mention the agreements and possible riches for the baron. Is it just me, or do I have a LOT of trouble simply keeping up with the ongoing storyline of most campaigns? My mind can't really handle all the complicated connections... maybe it's my low RL Int. But my character, who has higher Int and Cha, should be able to know what to tell the baron.

I guess part of the problem, is that it sounds like 'I Diplomance the baron'. Maybe it's because the DnD system isn't that nuanced in social aspects, and thus just has a few broad skills, unlike the combat system.

[coredump]

Baffling as it might sound, that's actually advice given in the PHB, page 178, under the sidebar "Finding a Hidden Object". I had to read that paragraph a few times myself, since that's such horrible advice.

So yeah, the PHB pretty much recommends expecting players to read the DM's mind and spell out every corner of the room they want to search.It has more to do with basing success on the current choices of PCs, rather than only the player choices during the creation process.
If the actions just boil down to very simple and broad statements and then a die roll.... it doesn't really matter what the PC does, just how you built the character.

PC: "I convince the Baron to join our battle"
DM: What do you say
PC: What? Do i have to read your mind? I just want to roll a die, I have +5 persuasion!

PC: I cast a spell at the golem
DM: What spell do you cast
PC; What? Do I have to read your mind? The best one for golem killing!

There are obstacles in the game, getting past those should be based on what the PCs actually do to get past them, not just how they build their character.
Do you choose ranged or melee weapons
Do you choose the magical dagger or the non-magical battle axe
Do you use fire or cold or force spells
Do you focus fire on one, or attack many of them
Do you kill the BBEG first, or clear out the minions
Do you remind the Baron of his debt to the Duke
Do you think to investigate the chandelier

PC choices *should* matter. Choosing to remove the rugs is no more 'mind reading' than using the magic dagger on the gargoyles.

[SharkForce]

you've already made a choice of what tool to use to solve the problem (your investigation skill or your persuasion skill). why do you need to choose how you're going to use it? does your DM base the successfulness of you using the +1 dagger on how you describe your attack, or based on the roll?

[Sindeloke]

However, the other 'universal' abilities being based on combat does not imply that the INT and CHA equivalents must be as well. For instance, gaining additional tool or language proficiencies from Intelligence could be a unique benefit of that ability, while simultaneously being one almost irrelevant in combat. I'm having trouble attempting to create such an ability for Charisma, however.

It would take a very particular type of game, but something related to followers or minions would be appropriate. Having a reputation score, like the old Star Wars d20 system, that has fixed mechanical effects on your ability to get resources out in the world, could also work, although that's kind of just an extension of what Charisma already does.


Same thing for Cha. If my PC has higher Cha than I am, she knows to mention the agreements and possible riches for the baron.

Eh, Charisma isn't about knowing what to say. Charisma is just an innate ability to get people to want you to like them. Proficiency in Persuasion would cover knowing what to say and how to say it, though, so your point still stands, the character can do that even if the player doesn't know how. As a DM, if I had a player whose character had a high Intelligence, I also might let them make an Intelligence check to try and remember something helpful, or a Wisdom check to figure out what the baron wants to hear right now if that score was high, either of which would grant advantage on the Persuasion if they succeed.

[ad_hoc]

Eh, Charisma isn't about knowing what to say. Charisma is just an innate ability to get people to want you to like them.

Charisma is actually your presence. It is your force of personality.

You can be likeable and have a low Charisma and vice versa. It is just that if you have a low Charisma then you won't take up as much space in the room conceptually and won't be as memorable.

[Finieous]

I don't think I'm saying anything new, but if you're emphasizing the exploration and social interaction "pillars," Intelligence and Charisma will have value. If you're not, I'm not sure why you'd care that they're dump stats.

Also, player description and skill mechanics can work just fine together. Yes, it's your character -- not you -- who is searching the room for clues. On the other hand, it's you -- not your character -- who is playing D&D. DMs should referee the game in a way that rewards both player and character engagement with the game world.