My big issue with 5E... Is charisma too powerful? [Archive]

djreynolds

2016-12-31, 07:46 AM

Coffee_Dragon

2016-12-31, 07:51 AM

They're game abstractions. You don't have to fluff a low-to-middling Int character as dumb, they just don't get Int-related bonuses to Int-related stuffs.

Drink responsibly!

Ethambutol

2016-12-31, 08:00 AM

Why does a Fighter/Barbarian need Wis, Str, Dex and Con? You don't have to invest heavily in Wisdom, nor do you need both Str AND Dex to be high (Dex Fighters can dump strength and Strength fighters/barbs don't particularly need to max Dex). Con is important for every character, including the Charisma based classes who need both the extra HP to shore up their terrible survivability and the Con save bonuses for concentration.

I mean, even Rangers can dump Wisdom easily enough. It's not like there are many spells in their arsenal that are actually worth having a high DC for.

Bards, Sorcerors, Warlocks and Paladins, i.e. the Charisma casters all want: Charisma, Con and Dex high as well and value Wisdom about as much as the non-Wisdom based classes do. I'm not seeing how that's any different?

I think it's reasonable to have the social skills benefit from other attribute scores in certain situations (e.g. a show of strength to intimdate someone from a Barbarian, or demonstrating sound knowledge to persuade someone that your group is competent with intelligence), but I don't see how you could argue that Charisma shouldn't be the main stat for social situations?

It sounds like you want Charisma to have... no skills associated with it? How is that fair exactly? It's not like Constitution where there are a bunch of awful saves that depend on the stat + a special mechanic (concentration) that depends on it also. The Charisma saving throw proficiency is basically useless outside of very niche situations and the only thing going for the stat other than affecting casting ability is the ability to perform well in social situations.

If you want your non-charisma based character to be good in social situations, choose a background for proficiency in one of the skills and maybe don't dump Charisma?

Shaofoo

2016-12-31, 08:02 AM

Remember that 10 is average. 10 is not mongoloid or socially retarded. Everyone can do their part if they want to, they can even get proficiency in skills if you really wanted to.

Just because you aren't the best doesn't make you the worst.

lonewulf

2016-12-31, 08:21 AM

Hakon

2016-12-31, 08:52 AM

It is my opinion that Sorcerers and clerics have their spell casting stat around the wrong way.

A cleric should be Charisma, they need to inspire the masses, gain favour from their gods, convince the faithless to join their religion etc... they are basically a divine version of a warlock their diety is their patron.

a sorcerer has his power from within, from knowing ones self, knowing ones capabilities, a sorcerer should be a wisdom class, as only by understanding them selves can they truly unleash their power.

What would this result in:
an arcane class for each mental stat:
Wizard Int
Sorcerer Wis
Warlock Cha

and divine classes:
Druid Wis
Cleric Cha
Class yet to be invented Int (maybe a doctor/healer/scholar)

and half casters
Monk wis
Bard Cha
paladin Cha
Class yet to be invented Int (maybe alchemist/rune smith)

doing this would stop a lot of shenanigans that i exploit and return balance to the game.

Dr. Cliché

2016-12-31, 09:20 AM

And did they not realize how potent it was making all the social skills fall under the charisma umbrella?

I mean what is charisma? And why does it affect 3 significant social skills?

Charisma is force of personality. It affects scial skills because that's what charisma *is*.

Does the fighter or wizard really have no personality? I mean read some the back stories you guys and gals write, fantastic stuff. Those PCs have personality

I think you are misunderstanding what Charisma is.

All PCs have personalities, but not all those personalities are equally *likeable*.

Heck I may start to use intelligence for persuasion or wisdom, why not?

Because being right is only half the battle. You also need to be able to articulate it in a way that appeals to the other person. That is where charisma comes in.

Its difficult with AL rules for most PCs not to dump something, that in return is only for a social skill... but these skills, like talking your way out of trouble can be significant.

This is heavily dependant on the nature of the campaign. If there's a lot of social activity, then sure. But if it's taking place in the wilderness you might quickly come to appreciate Wisdom for Survival and Animal Handling. Or, if most of your enemies are creatures that can't be reasoned with, then your social skills are largely wasted.

It is a huge investment for a fighter/barbarian/ranger to honestly excel in any social skills, without a dip for expertise but the cost is large for a class who needs wisdom, str, dex, and con.

And it's hard for wizards to be good at athletics or animal handling, what's your point?

Are these guys that socially inept?

Well, barbarians aren't exactly known for their social skills at the best of times. Rangers spend a lot of time in the wilderness and may well be better at interacting with animals than humans. You could make an argument for fighters (or some of them at least), but they're certainly not the sort of character I'd ascribe good social skills to by default.

Same for cleric, wizard, druids.

Druids are, if anything, likely to be worse than rangers in that regard.
Wizards might depend a bit, but certainly if they've spent years wrapped in books, then they probably won't have much in the way of social skills.
Clerics are an interesting one. It might depend on what you see their role being. Still, there's more of an argument to be made for them.

A cleric should be Charisma, they need to inspire the masses, gain favour from their gods, convince the faithless to join their religion etc... they are basically a divine version of a warlock their diety is their patron.

I'm not sure about that, honestly. It seems you could just as easily say that they need intelligence to read, memorise and recite the various scriptures. :smalltongue:

[B]
a sorcerer has his power from within, from knowing ones self, knowing ones capabilities, a sorcerer should be a wisdom class, as only by understanding them selves can they truly unleash their power.

I have to disagree completely here. 'Knowing yourself' is only relevant if the power within you is heavily reliant on your mental state. I've seen nothing to indicate that this is the case for Sorcerers.

If anything, since their powers are based on their inherited blood, I'd have thought Constitution would be the go-to stat for sorcerers.

Fayd

2016-12-31, 09:43 AM

I think sorcerers key off of charisma due to the word root association with the word; charism, or "divine gift." Technically speaking it's mostly used in the christian theological context, but if you expand the concept out a bit... the stronger their charisma, the stronger their connection to their charism, or magic.

Hakon

2016-12-31, 09:58 AM

Charisma is force of personality. It affects scial skills because that's what charisma *is*.

I think you are misunderstanding what Charisma is.

All PCs have personalities, but not all those personalities are equally *likeable*.

Because being right is only half the battle. You also need to be able to articulate it in a way that appeals to the other person. That is where charisma comes in.

This is heavily dependant on the nature of the campaign. If there's a lot of social activity, then sure. But if it's taking place in the wilderness you might quickly come to appreciate Wisdom for Survival and Animal Handling. Or, if most of your enemies are creatures that can't be reasoned with, then your social skills are largely wasted.

And it's hard for wizards to be good at athletics or animal handling, what's your point?

Well, barbarians aren't exactly known for their social skills at the best of times. Rangers spend a lot of time in the wilderness and may well be better at interacting with animals than humans. You could make an argument for fighters (or some of them at least), but they're certainly not the sort of character I'd ascribe good social skills to by default.

Druids are, if anything, likely to be worse than rangers in that regard.
Wizards might depend a bit, but certainly if they've spent years wrapped in books, then they probably won't have much in the way of social skills.
Clerics are an interesting one. It might depend on what you see their role being. Still, there's more of an argument to be made for them.

I'm not sure about that, honestly. It seems you could just as easily say that they need intelligence to read, memorise and recite the various scriptures. :smalltongue:

I have to disagree completely here. 'Knowing yourself' is only relevant if the power within you is heavily reliant on your mental state. I've seen nothing to indicate that this is the case for Sorcerers.

If anything, since their powers are based on their inherited blood, I'd have thought Constitution would be the go-to stat for sorcerers.

i don't mind it being con, but it would make them a 1 stat dependant character. you make a good point but consider this.

i prefer wisdom because it has been proven by science genetically that the mother passes on intellect but the father passes on wisdom.
expanding on this what they mean is the mother determines the childs learning capability and the father provides a subtle genetic memory.

by using wisdom as the sorcerers casting stat we are saying that their genetic memory is what is giving them their power.

Fayd i here what your saying, but having word link association isn't a good enough for explanation for why one has power in this day and age.
the clerics get their power from their diety, as such they need to be popular with their diety, thats it, zues likes you more so he gives you more power.

Fishyninja

2016-12-31, 10:23 AM

I don't think Charisma, or any of the Ability Scores are too powerful they all have their benefits and their downsides.

As Coffee_Dragon put it:

They're game abstractions. You don't have to fluff a low-to-middling Int character as dumb, they just don't get Int-related bonuses to Int-related stuffs.

And Shafoo

Remember that 10 is average. 10 is not mongoloid or socially retarded. Everyone can do their part if they want to, they can even get proficiency in skills if you really wanted to.

Just because you aren't the best doesn't make you the worst.

For example I have a Monk with a Cha of 9 and he is the most talkative of the group, is he the most likeable? probably not? Can he persuade, charm people? Yes but not as good as say a bard or a sorcerer. It's all about RP there is nothing saying that having a low ability makes you the worst in it, for example someone with the lowest intelligence score will not make them a moron, they may not just have a traditional education or no common sense, someone with the lowest strength can obviously still function.

When you look at the character sheet all the skills are approximately even in their distribution in the ASI scores so I do not think it is too powerful.
Again I will expect to hear arguments about Religion or Animal Handling or Sleight of Hand being useless skills but we all have skills that we do not use all the time and again as Shafoo said a 10 is average, you may not be as good at some skills than others.

However I think it would ahve been good if you could have picked Charisma or Intelligence for Persuasion

Aaron Underhand

2016-12-31, 10:52 AM

i don't mind it being con, but it would make them a 1 stat dependant character. you make a good point but consider this.

i prefer wisdom because it has been proven by science genetically that the mother passes on intellect but the father passes on wisdom....

I'd be really interested in any references you have to back up that claim. The references I have seen suggest the father's educational attainment is the best predictor of the children's:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/23/fathers-education-child-success-school

see also:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853053/

Syll

2016-12-31, 10:53 AM

I don't want to retread too much ground from that other discussion.... but yes, I do think it is disproportionate for charisma to be the -only- attribute governing the entirety of social interaction.

Social interaction is such a vast morass of differing situations and scenarios, made even more complex by the biases, preconceptions, beliefs and personalities of those -doing- the interacting, that i think it is illogical for a single attribute to govern it all.

I would appreciate a mechanic that (at char gen) set 2 of the 3 skills (intimidation, persuasion, deception) as CHA, but designated 1 as being governed by a different attribute.

Socratov

2016-12-31, 11:33 AM

3.5 Charisma (Diplomacy, mostly) could completely break the game....ive heard stories....terrible stories....whisperings of a terrible name.....the....the....diplomancer, there I said it! I wont say it again so dont try and make me!
Oh come off it, unless you were a bard or sorcerer (/other cha caster) there was no reason whatsoever to ever not dump CHA. That was not Charimsa being OP, that was Diplomacy as a skill being extremely poorly written. In 3.5 Int was the most powerful stat in the whole freaking game is it gave skillpoints (read: the ability to do anything that is related to skillchecks of which there were quite a few even in combat). It led to situations where the rogue (8+int.mod) got fewer skillpoints then the Wizard (2+int.mod) in due time.

In 5e Charisma is strong, surely, it's an ability score that finally has a use beyond being just your casting stat. In 5e I would consider dex or wis the strongest stat: dex because barring heavy armour it's used for AC, it governs your Initiative, and houses some of the strongest and most used skills in the game: Stealth and Acrobatics (the latter being one of only 2 ways to defend from grapples, the other way being having great athletics). On top of that it can also, if you choose to do so, govern attacks through to-hit and damage for both melee and ranged. Oh, and on top of that it's also one of the big 3 saves: often being the difference between an only slightly crispy character and ashes.

Wis is strong because it houses the single most important skill in the game: perception and it is a majorly targeted and very important save. Besides that it's also home to a lot of skills (some of which are very, very useful like survival and insight: your only defence versus charisma skills). Sometimes it's also (next to dex) relevant for AC and it is the casting stat of 2 classes (Ranger and cleric)

All charisma has is social interaction skills (great skills they are) and being the casting stat for sorcerers, bards and warlocks.

Charisma is not too powerful, it's just finally relevant.

Hakon

2016-12-31, 12:05 PM

Wis is strong because it houses the single most important skill in the game: perception and it is a majorly targeted and very important save. Besides that it's also home to a lot of skills (some of which are very, very useful like survival and insight: your only defence versus charisma skills). Sometimes it's also (next to dex) relevant for AC and it is the casting stat of 2 classes (Ranger and cleric)

what about druid

Arcangel4774

2016-12-31, 12:09 PM

I think the only issue is that charisma shouldn't be the casting stats for sorcerers. Im not sure if inteligence or wisdom fit better, though. Otherwise all seems well enough. A good DM will allow alternate attributes for skill checks when relevent. A rambling genius may not be good with people (low cha) but he can sure as hell convince people he's right (using int).

jok

2016-12-31, 12:12 PM

i prefer wisdom because it has been proven by science genetically that the mother passes on intellect but the father passes on wisdom.
expanding on this what they mean is the mother determines the childs learning capability and the father provides a subtle genetic memory.

That is some statement here. Got any links? Especially the proven part.

Fishyninja

2016-12-31, 12:18 PM

That is some statement here. Got any links? Especially the proven part.

Aaron posted the below links

I'd be really interested in any references you have to back up that claim. The references I have seen suggest the father's educational attainment is the best predictor of the children's:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/23/fathers-education-child-success-school

see also:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853053/

TripleD

2016-12-31, 12:29 PM

and half casters
[...]
Class yet to be invented Int (maybe alchemist/rune smith)

Honestly? I think this should be Rangers. In the same way that "WIS vs. CHA" helps to differentiate Clerics and Paladins, I feel like "WIS vs. INT" would help to differentiate Druids (who "feel" nature) from Rangers (who observe and work with it). Granted, a lot of the survival skills key off of wisdom, but that's something that can be tweaked.

Hakon

2016-12-31, 12:41 PM

Honestly? I think this should be Rangers. In the same way that "WIS vs. CHA" helps to differentiate Clerics and Paladins, I feel like "WIS vs. INT" would help to differentiate Druids (who "feel" nature) from Rangers (who observe and work with it). Granted, a lot of the survival skills key off of wisdom, but that's something that can be tweaked.

i like it.

so make clerics use Charisma
Sorcerers use Wisdom
and Rangers use intelligence.

for their spell casting and proficient save.

that would really balance the game out more.

VoxRationis

2016-12-31, 01:29 PM

In 5e Charisma is strong, surely, it's an ability score that finally has a use beyond being just your casting stat.
I don't quite follow. It's always had uses beyond being a casting stat. In fact, those other uses predate its use as a casting stat.

Jarlhen

2016-12-31, 01:38 PM

Charisma is not too powerful. Not at all. People just play the game wrong (I SAID IT!). They treat persuasion checks like they're mind control spells. Or deception as if they lower the targets intelligence and wisdom to 1. It's absolutely ****ing absurd some of the things you hear. I'm a decently charismatic guy, I'm a fantastic salesman, great manager, I have a way with people. Doesn't mean I can go down and convince the cops that I'm the president. Or that I can tell the slav mobsters down the street that I'm part of their gang. Or the skaters in the park that I'm Tony Hawk. Now maybe if I looked the part I could put some doubt in their mind, but it'll take 3 seconds for them to figure out I'm lying or that I'm full of BS. Same in D&D. All these stories of minor illusion combined with persuasion convincing orcs the PCs are Gods or the city guard that they're kings or whatever. It's complete bull****. Social checks are for situations where you can either make the NPC doubt or where you're already half-way in. People are using it in ways that make it too powerful. There's absolutely no reason for it and by my standards it's no different than getting the rules wrong.

Zene

2016-12-31, 01:45 PM

Socratov

2016-12-31, 01:57 PM

what about druid
Well spotted, I will amend my post.

I don't quite follow. It's always had uses beyond being a casting stat. In fact, those other uses predate its use as a casting stat.
It had uses, yet in 3.5 it was the de-facto dumpstat as it did not help with saves (wis), nor offered any skillpoints (stuff that made you actually competent in the cha skills). Well, it was a dumpstat for any class that did not use charisma as its main stat. If you were a sorcerer, warlock or bard, charisma was what you took and rocked. if you was not one of those classes you took your dex, str and con, and maybe some wis.

In 5e with its break from skillpoints (though that might have also been 4e which I never played) introduced CHA as an option once again. Even if the social skills are less powerful then before (and yes diplomacy was broken and stupidly written).

SharkForce

2016-12-31, 01:59 PM

Did they not play test this stuff?

Did they not see how well and easily charisma based classes come together to multiclass? You need 2 stats.. strength and charisma

And did they not realize how potent it was making all the social skills fall under the charisma umbrella?

I mean what is charisma? And why does it affect 3 significant social skills?

Does the fighter or wizard really have no personality? I mean read some the back stories you guys and gals write, fantastic stuff. Those PCs have personality

I was all over another OP when he wanted to use strength instead of charisma for intimidation... "that wrong.. blah...blah.

He was right.

Heck I may start to use intelligence for persuasion or wisdom, why not?

Its difficult with AL rules for most PCs not to dump something, that in return is only for a social skill... but these skills, like talking your way out of trouble can be significant.

A LOT of LOVE went into writing the paladin class, and their charisma affects combat, saves, and social skills

It is a huge investment for a fighter/barbarian/ranger to honestly excel in any social skills, without a dip for expertise but the cost is large for a class who needs wisdom, str, dex, and con. Are these guys that socially inept? Same for cleric, wizard, druids.

A paladin, sorcerer, or warlock easily select bard who for some reason only needs a 13 in charisma. Why not a 13 in intelligence or dex? I mean a bard needs some dexterity to play a guitar? A lore bard doesn't need intelligence... to read?

The charisma attribute is so extremely powerful... is it too powerful?

Happy New Year folks!!!!!

charisma is the attribute that governs your ability to influence others. that's why it's used for those skills for influencing others. just like strength is the attribute that governs your ability to apply brute force to the world, and as such is used for breaking doors, shoving enemies, jumping, climbing, and a large assortment of weapons.

and if you think paladins have an easy time investing in charisma without cost, i have to disagree entirely. paladins are much more MAD than fighters or barbarians, to a point where it can even be hard for them to invest in any feats at all, and i've seen far more one-feat paladins than i've seen for barbarians or fighters (each of which often invest in 2 or more feats).

paladins can multiclass with warlock, bard, and sorcerer really easily? well, good for them. fighter can multiclass with everything that isn't those 3 classes more easily, and barbarian is only slightly behind as a result of rage conflicting with casting spells and concentration (that said, i've even seen some barbarian/warlock builds that pick up armour of agathys). meanwhile, paladin really struggles to multiclass with anything that doesn't require either strength or charisma. to some extent, paladins even struggle with charisma classes (any time they'd rather be dex-based than strength-based, basically).

and if you think it's hard for a fighter to excel at charisma skills, you should try making a sorcerer that is an expert grappler sometime. sure, you can do it... but it's going to cost you big time in terms of being a good sorcerer.

strength is not in dire need of help. it's got uses, and in its own sphere is as useful as any other. the attribute that needs the most help from DMs to stay relevant is intelligence, imo. apart from wizards, it's basically only used for knowledge checks, and a combination of basically no guidelines and the fact that setting DCs at a point where you need decent int or proficiency to have a chance to make the check results in those checks being hard even for people who do have int and/or proficiency (and setting the DC at a moderately high value results in quantity of knowledge checks being just as effective as quality).

bid

2016-12-31, 02:02 PM

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853053/
That only works because women weren't educated in the 60s.

And it doesn't get rid of nature vs nuture.

Still, I had a good laugh at the "proven by science" bit which stated the opposite of this study.

Laserlight

2016-12-31, 02:15 PM

I don't want to retread too much ground from that other discussion.... but yes, I do think it is disproportionate for charisma to be the -only- attribute governing the entirety of social interaction.

It isn't. Do you know whether you've actually persuaded them? Do you have a feel for whether they're lying to you? Can you judge how big a bribe you need to offer? Insight.

Syll

2016-12-31, 02:18 PM

That only works because women weren't educated in the 60s.

And it doesn't get rid of nature vs nuture.

Still, I had a good laugh at the "proven by science" bit which stated the opposite of this study.

I think you are confusing who said what.

i prefer wisdom because it has been proven by science genetically that the mother passes on intellect but the father passes on wisdom.
expanding on this what they mean is the mother determines the childs learning capability and the father provides a subtle genetic memory.

by using wisdom as the sorcerers casting stat we are saying that their genetic memory is what is giving them their power.

I'd be really interested in any references you have to back up that claim.* The references I have seen suggest the father's educational attainment is the best predictor of the children's:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/sep/23/fathers-education-child-success-school

see also:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2853053/

*emphasis mine.

He was disagreeing, and linked studies that supported his position.

bid

2016-12-31, 03:07 PM

I think you are confusing who said what.
Nope, I was just short of a few words again.

But I should have noted that his link at least debunked the "proven by science" bit.

Now for a tale of epigenetics: they studied some kids whose paternal grandmother had survived a heavy food shortage in some scandinavian town a century ago. Or something like that, I can't remember. As you can guess, something of that famine carried over through the kids fathers.

Found it, I think... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Överkalix_study

BiPolar

2016-12-31, 03:24 PM

Just checking here... Folks have an issue with CHA but not DEX? I mean, if you're going to complain about a stat, the one that combines some attacks, AC, initiative, sneak, sleight on hand, acrobatics, and a lot of very important saves seems like a better one to have an issue with.

I don't have an issue with any stats power. Everything is a game of choices.

djreynolds

2016-12-31, 05:03 PM

Is Cha too powerful? Definitely. The ability that governs all social interactions should not also power spellcasting; it makes no game sense, and it makes the abilities super lopsided. The fact that Intelligence is a dump stat for all but one class and a couple of subclasses is absolutely insane. If I want to be a caster, I have the choice of being an Int-based caster and suck at pretty much everything else; or be a Wis-based caster and be good at a few other things; or be a Cha-based caster and be good at 90% of the game.

Yes, charisma has too much attached to it.

Wisdom does as well with spells and perception but most monk's will never see greater than a 20AC without help.
Shillelagh is its own thing.

Same with intelligence.

Dexterity, is powerful, but at least doesn't have spell powers attached to it. And ranged spells no longer require it to aim.

I get charisma is personality. But it's powerful and it totally runs social skills and in AL play with standard array, something is an 8 or 10.

1 level dip of rogue is too easy to grab, but all most all of my builds do this for expertise that are not bard/sorcerer/paladin/warlock.

It's as if D&D is divided into charisma and non-charisma based classes and the druid said screw it I'm turning into a bear.

I do like that sorcerer idea, being wisdom.

Steel Mirror

2016-12-31, 05:41 PM

the attribute that needs the most help from DMs to stay relevant is intelligence, imo. apart from wizards, it's basically only used for knowledge checks, and a combination of basically no guidelines and the fact that setting DCs at a point where you need decent int or proficiency to have a chance to make the check results in those checks being hard even for people who do have int and/or proficiency (and setting the DC at a moderately high value results in quantity of knowledge checks being just as effective as quality).
I agree with this. Intelligence needs some help, but all the other stats are okay. I think Charisma is fine, as it still routinely gets dumped by warrior types, non-Cha casters, and maybe about a third or a quarter of rogues I play with. It has uses, but none of them are as vital as, say, hp, AC, or attack rolls/damage for those classes which don't use it as a casting stat. And yes, it is powerful for Sorcs and Locks, but even they can't get away with only concerning themselves with a single stat. So I have no problem with it.

If Intelligence gave you bonus tool proficiencies or skills or something, like it used to, that might go a long way to making it more relevant.

Dr.Samurai

2016-12-31, 05:47 PM

I'm not sure if the OP is serious.

napoleon_in_rag

2016-12-31, 06:09 PM

In the early days of D&D, you had four classes each with a Prime Requisite:

Fighter: Strength
Thief: Dexterity
Cleric: Wisdom
Wizard: Intelligence

I think the designers considered Constitution and Charisma as useful to all classes and did not assign it as a prime requisite for any class. (This is a guess, I have no idea what Gary Gygax's intention was with Charisma. I was 10 at the time.)

The problem was that while Constitution was useful for every class (try being a lvl 1 mage with 1d4 hp), the game mechanics for Charisma were not well developed back then. It ended up being every character's dump stat.

Starting with 3e, game designers made Charisma more important with the addition of the Sorcerer. And now, in 5e, it is at least as important as the other stats. I see this as an improvement to the game.

It sounds like the OP's problem has to do more with how a DM is assigning the difficulty of a task, not the stat itself.
If a character with high CHA is able to convince an Orc to go vegan, that's a DM problem not a 5e problem.

Tanarii

2016-12-31, 06:38 PM

I'm not sure if the OP is serious.
That was my first reaction too. :smallbiggrin:

Cha is powerful in social situations, and those aren't nothing in D&D, but neither are they bread and butter as they are in some other game systems that are not primarily oriented towards dungeon, wilderness, and yes even sometimes urban, exploration & combat adventures.

And any SAD class is just as able to multiclassing effectively with Cha class as they are with any other single-stat class, notwithstanding non-attribute classing details (ie stacking slots, overlapping Extra Attack, features that scale with single class only). There are three inherently MAD classes, one of them uses Str/Cha and the other two use Dex/Wis, and those are more limited in effective multiclassing by their MADness, not made more powerful by it.

As an aside I have no idea why the ability to interact with others, including eloquence and/or a charming or commanding personality, which is what 5e Charisma is defined as, would drive Sorcerer and Warlock spells. Nor does it make any particular sense for Wisdom, which is defined as being attuned with the world around you, and intuition and perceptiveness, to be a driving force for Cleric spells. You just have to take these carry-overs from previous editions with a grain of "because mechanics" salt.

In the early days of D&D, you had four classes each with a Prime Requisite:

Fighter: Strength
Thief: Dexterity
Cleric: Wisdom
Wizard: Intelligence
The Thief wasn't introduced until the Greyhawk supplement. My understanding has always been that Dexterity was an 'everyone' stat in the first publication oD&D. That said, I've never actually read them so I don't know how it was used in those books.

I think the designers considered Constitution and Charisma as useful to all classes and did not assign it as a prime requisite for any class. (This is a guess, I have no idea what Gary Gygax's intention was with Charisma. I was 10 at the time.)

The problem was that while Constitution was useful for every class (try being a lvl 1 mage with 1d4 hp), the game mechanics for Charisma were not well developed back then. It ended up being every character's dump stat.Charisma is critical in older editions of D&D. Henchmen were crucial to both survival, and being able to do more than one thing at the same time.

In the past, I played plenty in older games where henchmen weren't used much, and Cha tended to get dumped. But in retrospect, I can see we were totally wrong in throwing away huge chunks of character power by doing that ... all because it was 'too complicated' to control more than one character. And because we didn't want henchmen 'sucking up' XP, which goes to show we didn't understand action economy, nor the way the XP scaling meant you ended up with multiple characters close to the same level that your single character would have been. Henchmen are a huge force multiplier because of those two factors. The few times I've played retro gaming of older versions since then has proved this to be true.

napoleon_in_rag

2016-12-31, 08:18 PM

As an aside I have no idea why the ability to interact with others, including eloquence and/or a charming or commanding personality, which is what 5e Charisma is defined as, would drive Sorcerer and Warlock spells.

If I remember correctly, the original Sorcerer in 3e manipulated magic the way a musician manipulates sound or a poet manipulates words. So charisma made sense because magic was an art for them. I agree that in 5e, with Sorcerers getting their magic something in their ancestry, Charisma does not make a lot of sense.

The Thief wasn't introduced until the Greyhawk supplement. My understanding has always been that Dexterity was an 'everyone' stat in the first publication oD&D. That said, I've never actually read them so I don't know how it was used in those books.

Greyhawk predates me by a few years. The first time I played was on the Basic D&D box set around 1980.

Charisma is critical in older editions of D&D. Henchmen were crucial to both survival, and being able to do more than one thing at the same time.

In the past, I played plenty in older games where henchmen weren't used much, and Cha tended to get dumped. But in retrospect, I can see we were totally wrong in throwing away huge chunks of character power by doing that ... all because it was 'too complicated' to control more than one character. And because we didn't want henchmen 'sucking up' XP, which goes to show we didn't understand action economy, nor the way the XP scaling meant you ended up with multiple characters close to the same level that your single character would have been. Henchmen are a huge force multiplier because of those two factors. The few times I've played retro gaming of older versions since then has proved this to be true.

I think Critical is too strong a word. In early editions, a mediocre Charisma allowed you like 3 or 4 henchman with a 0 morale modifier. Even a low Charisma allowed you 1 or 2 henchmen with a -1 modifier. An 18 charisma allowed you to have a ridiculous number of henchmen (like 20+?) and a big morale modifier but it wasn't a definite thing because most DMs I've played with limited henchmen to just a few per PC. Even the open minded ones wouldn't let you take 10+ into the Dungeon with you. (I am pulling these numbers off the top of my head, by the way. I don't have my 1e or 2e books handy. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.)

Anyways, my point was that the effect of Charisma, outside of your Henchman's morale rolls, was not well defined in the older editions. Perhaps 5e goes to far the other way but it does make Charisma a more useful stat for all characters.

Hakon

2016-12-31, 09:13 PM

studies listed in earlier post are about education, not genetic memory or genetic intelligence

Tanarii

2016-12-31, 09:38 PM

I think Critical is too strong a word. In early editions, a mediocre Charisma allowed you like 3 or 4 henchman with a 0 morale modifier. Even a low Charisma allowed you 1 or 2 henchmen with a -1 modifier. An 18 charisma allowed you to have a ridiculous number of henchmen (like 20+?) and a big morale modifier but it wasn't a definite thing because most DMs I've played with limited henchmen to just a few per PC. Even the open minded ones wouldn't let you take 10+ into the Dungeon with you. (I am pulling these numbers off the top of my head, by the way. I don't have my 1e or 2e books handy. I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong.)Each henchman adds +50% or more of your original power, depending on their morale. (Or rather close to 100% until their morale breaks). I'm not sure how that can't be considered critical.

And being able to have a 'ridiculous' number of henchmen is important when you start playing by the actual rules in AD&D 1e and keeping careful track of time, and suddenly find out that your 'main' character can't be everywhere at once.

But even if you're playing in a lockstep party / timeless campaign where the entire group always adventures together and time isn't tracked/is hand waved (both of which often happen in BECMI), high charisma in regards to henchmen is still invaluable because morale checks happen frequently. More morale = more chance to be effective in any given situation = more power. Using BECMI stats, since that's both what I played the most back then and later on using RC rules, 40% reliability on 3 retainers (Cha 6-8) isn't nearly as useful as 58% reliability on 4 (Cha 9-12) or 72% on 5 (Cha 13-15) or 83% on 6 (Cha 16-17). AD&D had a similar curve ... Higher Cha meant more Henchmen AND higher loyalty for each henchman.

Note that these moral rates are why DMs can actually allow massive numbers of retainers per player without too much problem, although I admit it breaks down in AD&D 1e a bit with an 17/18 being 10-15. You need a lot to counteract morale rolls. Henchmen are a pretty cowardly bunch compared to PCs :smallwink:

Not to mention many AD&D 1e DMs back-ruled the henchmen limit to be a lifetime limit after OA.

Anyways, my point was that the effect of Charisma, outside of your Henchman's morale rolls, was not well defined in the older editions. Perhaps 5e goes to far the other way but it does make Charisma a more useful stat for all characters.Outside of henchmen, it modified your reaction roll. That was something pretty well defined. You made reaction rolls at the start of any encounter (BECMI, I believe AD&D 1e as well but I'd have to check that), as well as during negotiations, and (in AD&D 1e) various other specific interactions.

In other words, it did everything 5e Charisma does (per the Social Interaction portion of the DMG), plus more in the form of henchmen.

The problem with pre-3e wasn't Charisma wasn't that it wasn't properly defined. The problem was almost always that people didn't know the rules for it and/or didn't use them anyway. It was a far more powerful stat than it is now.

Edit: here's a guy blogging about the same basic experience I ran into, but in regards to B/X. This popped up when I was googling the morale chances for BECMI
http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2011/07/bx-charisma-henchmen-part-1.html

The Shadowdove

2016-12-31, 11:14 PM

Just incase someone else hasn't posted this yet. I agree and use this variant when I feel appropriate.

PHB 175.

Variant for skills with different abilities

"Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a
specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics,
for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably
apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM
might ask for a check using an unusual com bination of
ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can
apply a proficiency to a different check. For example,
if you have to swim from an offshore island to the
mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check
to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this
case, your DM might allow you to apply your proficiency
in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check.
So if you’re proficient in Athletics, you apply your
proficiency bonus to the Constitution check just as you
would normally do for a Strength (Athletics) check.
Similarly, when your half-orc barbarian uses a display
of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might
ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though
Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."

napoleon_in_rag

2017-01-01, 12:05 AM

Each henchman adds +50% or more of your original power, depending on their morale. (Or rather close to 100% until their morale breaks). I'm not sure how that can't be considered critical.

You are assuming the henchman is the same level as the player. Most times the henchman is a lower level. If the henchman is not you run into the "DM running the powerful NPC ally" problem that a lot of new DMs run into. Especially of you are running 15 henchmen.

I also seem to remember a mercenary pay table in BECMI or 1e that limits all mercenaries to lvl 1 Fighters? Who would be useless on a higher level campaign. I will look it up when I get home.

And being able to have a 'ridiculous' number of henchmen is important when you start playing by the actual rules in AD&D 1e and keeping careful track of time, and suddenly find out that your 'main' character can't be everywhere at once.

I am pretty sure every version says that henchmen aren't directly controlled by the player. The player gives orders and the DM interprets the orders. And like you point out, because of the time management issues in the early editions, you couldn't give out 15 individual sets of orders in one round.

Also, I bet if you look in the DM section of any of these books, they say no henchmen should be allowed until the PC reaches level 5 or 6. And back then, with 2000xp required for Lvl 1 and an Orc being worth like 15xp, it took a while to get up that high. So why, when creating a new character on a game starting at Lvl 1, would I put my highest roll in Charisma versus Strength, Dexterity or Constitution?

The DM also has to balance what level the henchman are with the encounters. If the henchman are too low level, they all die in the first round of combat. If the henchmen are too high a level, it becomes the DM running a large batch of NPC henchmen against monsters with the PCs watching from the sidelines.

For these reasons, I think you are wrong to suppose that most DMs didn't know the rules existed. I think most DMs intentionally chose to ignore them.

Outside of henchmen, it modified your reaction roll. That was something pretty well defined. You made reaction rolls at the start of any encounter (BECMI, I believe AD&D 1e as well but I'd have to check that), as well as during negotiations, and (in AD&D 1e) various other specific interactions.

In other words, it did everything 5e Charisma does (per the Social Interaction portion of the DMG), plus more in the form of henchmen.

The problem with pre-3e wasn't Charisma wasn't that it wasn't properly defined. The problem was almost always that people didn't know the rules for it and/or didn't use them anyway. It was a far more powerful stat than it is now.

Reaction roles only determined how the monster/NPC acted at the beginning of the encounter. And it pretty much just determined if the monster immediately attacked or not. Where it went from there depended on roleplaying. In my experience, rolling a "friendly" only lasted until the first bloodthirsty PC drew her sword.

There were no rules for Intimidation or Persuasion like there are in 5e. These depended on what the PCs did independent of there stat. I think Charisma is something %e does better than previous editions.

djreynolds

2017-01-01, 12:59 AM

I'm not sure if the OP is serious.

I am, but I do like a good debate and starting fights online :smallbiggrin: But there was a thread we have read and you and Tanarii made good arguements. And it got me thinking about this all purpose stat, charisma, that can be used for too much.

In the early days of D&D, you had four classes each with a Prime Requisite:

Fighter: Strength
Thief: Dexterity
Cleric: Wisdom
Wizard: Intelligence

I think the designers considered Constitution and Charisma as useful to all classes and did not assign it as a prime requisite for any class. (This is a guess, I have no idea what Gary Gygax's intention was with Charisma. I was 10 at the time.)

Back in the day there was no conversation skill, until 3rd. And to think of it, I find it dumb. We are micromanaging aspects of the game, do you really even need to roll dice while talking?

"Good King I rolled a 20, I CAN TALK WITH YOU, but my friend rolled a 2... so disregard him, sire"

Charisma used to mean nothing in earlier editions other than you needed a 17 to play a paladin... now it affects or effects 4 classes casting stats, all the social skills, paladin's add it saves, warlocks/sorcerers to damage, and to hit for ranged spells, and can be even used for shillelagh and it is an important save.

Players actually dump intelligence because of how powerful charisma is. I think it got out of hand.

There is a great thread about paladin/sorcerer multiclass... but honestly making a paladin multiclass is actually very easy and way too effective.

dropbear8mybaby

2017-01-01, 01:02 AM

Did they not see how well and easily charisma based classes come together to multiclass? You need 2 stats.. strength and charisma

Whut?

I think you meant Dexterity.

djreynolds

2017-01-01, 01:05 AM

Whut?

I think you meant Dexterity.

The only stats needed for a paladin multiclass into bard/sorcerer/warlock is 13 in str and 13 in chr.... that's it.

Tanarii

2017-01-01, 03:40 AM

You are assuming the henchman is the same level as the player. Most times the henchman is a lower level. If the henchman is not you run into the "DM running the powerful NPC ally" problem that a lot of new DMs run into. Especially of you are running 15 henchmen.The way the XP tables scale means after relatively short term of service they will rapidly gain on the PC. And

I am pretty sure every version says that henchmen aren't directly controlled by the player. The player gives orders and the DM interprets the orders.Never heard of a rule like that. As far as I know, the retainers and henchmen are able to be ran by the PCs, baring a morale check failure or something the DM considers out of character.

. And like you point out, because of the time management issues in the early editions, you couldn't give out 15 individual sets of orders in one round.Absolutely you could. That's the entire point. I was referring to 'downtime' ... Magic magic items, training, off running a stronghold, off traveling on another simultaneous adventure.

Also, I bet if you look in the DM section of any of these books, they say no henchmen should be allowed until the PC reaches level 5 or 6. And back then, with 2000xp required for Lvl 1 and an Orc being worth like 15xp, it took a while to get up that high. So why, when creating a new character on a game starting at Lvl 1, would I put my highest roll in Charisma versus Strength, Dexterity or Constitution?Nope. In basic they just can't be higher level than you. In AD&D they must be 1 or 2 levels lower. And XP gain when adventuring with higher level characters is super fast, since GP = XP. In fact, nothing says GP needs to be distributed equally so you can pump lower level characters by loading the, with a larger share of the rewards if you want, within the limit of training require,nets.

The DM also has to balance what level the henchman are with the encounters. If the henchman are too low level, they all die in the first round of combat. If the henchmen are too high a level, it becomes the DM running a large batch of NPC henchmen against monsters with the PCs watching from the sidelines. DMs don't balance encounters in BECMI or AD&D 1e. That's a 3e onwards conceit.

For these reasons, I think you are wrong to suppose that most DMs didn't know the rules existed. I think most DMs intentionally chose to ignore them.The typically chose to ignore them because they didn't understand the rules and emir purpose. Not because they didn't know about them. I mean DMs ignored level limits and GP = XP and training too ... because they didn't understand the purpose. Those rules existed for a reason.

djreynolds

2017-01-01, 03:45 AM

I do remember henchmen back in the day, it was cool to have retainers

The Shadowdove

2017-01-01, 03:56 AM

I do remember henchmen back in the day, it was cool to have retainers

Yes sir, you are right. A man who appreciates the finer things in being naturally superior to peasants. So much that even those with class levels are fated to become your servants. Hat off to you.

Socratov

2017-01-01, 04:47 AM

The only stats needed for a paladin multiclass into bard/sorcerer/warlock is 13 in str and 13 in chr.... that's it.

And this is a valid argument against charisma and in favour of dexterity because?

if you wanted to multiclass into wizard all you need is 13 int. for cleric/druid/ranger 13 wis and so on. I mean, it's not as if paladins want charisma for themselves any way for, say, Aura of Courage and their own spellcasting...

EK's and AT's like intelligence as well, as it governs their spellcasting. And Charisma is not even a major save! (only real nasty effect you can get that targets charisma is Banishment). Now wisdom on the other hand, has the casting or class ability for clerics, druids, rangers and monks governs a major save (hold person/monster and a plethora of other stuff that is very nasty when struck), has the most important skill in the game (perception) as well as another rater important skill (Insight).

And then we have dex: (like I said before), major save against AoE dmg effects (It's like a high dex and save proficiency gives you resistance vs AoE magic), it has some of the strongest skills in the game (after perception generally come acrobatics and stealth), governs AC (except heavy armour), initiative, and both ranged and melee attacks (when finesse applies).

Charisma is most definitely not the strongest stat out there and if your DM is allowing your buddy to convince orcs to go vegan that is a DM problem and not a 5e problem.

djreynolds

2017-01-01, 05:50 AM

And this is a valid argument against charisma and in favour of dexterity because?

if you wanted to multiclass into wizard all you need is 13 int. for cleric/druid/ranger 13 wis and so on. I mean, it's not as if paladins want charisma for themselves any way for, say, Aura of Courage and their own spellcasting...

EK's and AT's like intelligence as well, as it governs their spellcasting. And Charisma is not even a major save! (only real nasty effect you can get that targets charisma is Banishment). Now wisdom on the other hand, has the casting or class ability for clerics, druids, rangers and monks governs a major save (hold person/monster and a plethora of other stuff that is very nasty when struck), has the most important skill in the game (perception) as well as another rater important skill (Insight).

And then we have dex: (like I said before), major save against AoE dmg effects (It's like a high dex and save proficiency gives you resistance vs AoE magic), it has some of the strongest skills in the game (after perception generally come acrobatics and stealth), governs AC (except heavy armour), initiative, and both ranged and melee attacks (when finesse applies).

Charisma is most definitely not the strongest stat out there and if your DM is allowing your buddy to convince orcs to go vegan that is a DM problem and not a 5e problem.

You have many good points

I'm just saying is a very powerful attribute, I'm not saying any more important than dex or wis or con.

Dex is something everyone class wants though, same as constitution and wisdom. These I would assume you would never want a negative in these at least. And of course these were the main saves in previous editions

Shield master does grants a pseudo evasion, if you want that feat, it may not fit your particular build. And athletics/acrobatics are both very strong

Charisma just affects too many areas and not just personality, demeanor... the damage modifier of some spells, it enhances saves of the paladin, DC of spell casting. And banishment can be a game changer, it is a very potent spell. And it effects all the social skills

Hence, is charisma too strong now? Is charisma where it should be? Should it be equal to the big 3?

It is tough in AL play with standard array, not to place a 12, 10, or 8 in charisma for most builds... assuming 15 dex/str, 14 con, 13 wisdom as theses attributes are very important.

Social interactions are only 1 pillar of the game, and I find needing charisma just for aspect for the majority of the classes is expensive with standard array

I find I use the PHB variant on 195, and I use a combination of attributes, usually the average of charisma/intelligence for persuasion. And I actually let players use strength for intimidation now.

I actually find intelligence, once an important stat, is dumped in AL play... sometimes by ATs/EKs

Tanarii

2017-01-01, 06:43 AM

Back in the day there was no conversation skill, until 3rd. And to think of it, I find it dumb. We are micromanaging aspects of the game, do you really even need to roll dice while talking?Back in the day, there was a reaction roll, modified by charisma. It was used almost exactly the same way Charisma is supposed to be used today:
You play out the conversation, and if the DM decided a reaction check was necessary, he rolled it (2d6 in BECMI and d% in AD&D 1e) and modified it by the speakers charisma.
Note this is exactly how the DMG tells you to do it in 5e with Charisma. The only difference is now the DM chooses which subset of charisma applies (Deception, Persuasion, Intimidation), and if you are proficient you get an additional bonus.

From various comments Mearls has made it is hardly a coincidence that 5e works in so many ways like AD&D and even earlier editions.

Charisma used to mean nothing in earlier editions other than you needed a 17 to play a paladin... now it affects or effects 4 classes casting stats, all the social skills, paladin's add it saves, warlocks/sorcerers to damage, and to hit for ranged spells, and can be even used for shillelagh and it is an important save.Yeah, this was because in earlier editions people ignored all the rules that made charisma mean something. Namely, both retainers/henchmen and reaction roll modifiers

Players actually dump intelligence because of how powerful charisma is. I think it got out of hand.Then they are stupid. /deadpan.

No but seriously, 1/3 of the classes require Cha. Rogues are also pretty sweet at it. Barbarians, Clerics, Druids, Fighters, Monks, Rangers, and Wizards can (and IMX do) all dump Cha like it was hot.

Wizards, EKs and AT all use Int directly. But no Rogue / Ranger can afford to dump Int, because Investigation is core to what they do, and also for Rangers Nature & Favored Enemy both rely on it. Then Druids and Warlocks are Int focused proficiency classes (and thematic too), and it's much more fashionable for them to dump Str first.

However what really matters if how often the DM calls for checks for the two things. If they're using Cha checks more often and for bigger deal things than Int checks, then people will dump Int more. And vice versa. Because people are natural optimizers if you give them a tool to optimize, and they know their DM's habits. Or make assumptions about AL DMs based on experience.

Of course, you can also just talk yourself into a preconceived notion and dump based on that. It's definitely in vogue when it comes to Int dumpers in 5e.

There is a great thread about paladin/sorcerer multiclass... but honestly making a paladin multiclass is actually very easy and way too effective.
you seem slightly obsessed with Paladin's ability to multiclass. Why is that? They can easily MC with 5 other classes using their two stats of Str/Cha. Rangers and Monks can only MC with four using the same standard (including each other) using Dex/Wis. But all other classes can MC with at least eight using the same standard of their primary Stat + one other. Paladins are among the most limited for non-MADder MC options, not in good shape.

Dr. Cliché

2017-01-01, 06:59 AM

the attribute that needs the most help from DMs to stay relevant is intelligence, imo. apart from wizards, it's basically only used for knowledge checks, and a combination of basically no guidelines and the fact that setting DCs at a point where you need decent int or proficiency to have a chance to make the check results in those checks being hard even for people who do have int and/or proficiency (and setting the DC at a moderately high value results in quantity of knowledge checks being just as effective as quality).

Agreed.

I can understand divorcing intelligence from skills known (it's a bit weird when intellect is required to be good at athletics :smallwink:). However, I think it really does need another role of some kind.

It's probably not helped by the removal of most of the knowledge skills from 3.5. Now, I don't necessarily object to merging them a bit, but in 3.5 I knew what all the different knowledge skills were for. I'd have liked that trend to continue in 5e.

e.g. Which knowledge skill do you use for Mind Flayers or Aboleths in 5e? You could maybe go with Arcana because they're somewhat magical. But they're also really old, so perhaps it should be History? But then they (and certainly their followers, if applicable) could well qualify as a cult - so Religion then?

I think it's also one of the harder mental stats to roleplay - especially when high.

Tanarii

2017-01-01, 07:04 AM

e.g. Which knowledge skill do you use for Mind Flayers or Aboleths in 5e? You could maybe go with Arcana because they're somewhat magical. But they're also really old, so perhaps it should be History? But then they (and certainly their followers, if applicable) could well qualify as a cult - so Religion then?

You use History if it's about their impact in history, Nature if it's about their natural functions (if they could be called that), Religion for their religious practices, and Arcana for arcane lore related to their magical abilities. And Int checks (no proficiency) for everything else.

Remember, the default is Ability Checks, not Skill checks. Don't try to cram everything into a skill because bonus.

Dr. Cliché

2017-01-01, 07:06 AM

You use History if it's about their impact in history, Nature if it's about their natural functions (if they could be called that), Religion for their religious practices, and Arcana for arcane lore related to their magical abilities. And Int checks (no proficiency) for everything else.

Memo: never take any knowledge skill.

Remember, the default is Ability Checks, not Skill checks. Don't try to cram everything into a skill because bonus.

Yes, because God forbid a player get any actual value out of a knowledge skill.

Theoboldi

2017-01-01, 08:00 AM

Yes, because God forbid a player get any actual value out of a knowledge skill.

Honestly, I find that Tanariis method has the exact opposite effect of what you think.

By having different skills give different pieces of information, you are guaranteed to learn at least something about a certain creature relevant to what your character would know. Not to mention that, since no skill is trained only anymore and skills are deliberately de-emphazised in this edition, just a high intelligence roll can already get you much of this information.

Arcana is still pretty much the most versatile knowledge skill and History is somewhat lame in comparison, but that's what the were already like in previous editions. 5e at least leveled that particular playing field a little by not cramming each creature type into a single knowledge skill.

Socratov

2017-01-01, 08:09 AM

Agreed.

I can understand divorcing intelligence from skills known (it's a bit weird when intellect is required to be good at athletics :smallwink:). However, I think it really does need another role of some kind.

It's probably not helped by the removal of most of the knowledge skills from 3.5. Now, I don't necessarily object to merging them a bit, but in 3.5 I knew what all the different knowledge skills were for. I'd have liked that trend to continue in 5e.

e.g. Which knowledge skill do you use for Mind Flayers or Aboleths in 5e? You could maybe go with Arcana because they're somewhat magical. But they're also really old, so perhaps it should be History? But then they (and certainly their followers, if applicable) could well qualify as a cult - so Religion then?

I think it's also one of the harder mental stats to roleplay - especially when high.

Int is logical for an increased learning of skills as it governs how intelligent you are and subsequently (not arguing that this is realistic, though it does work form a verisimilitude standpoint) how good you are at learning stuff. As you have increased cognitive function you get better at skills as you pick them up quicker or need to invest less time to pick them up. So in the same amount of rime (roughly between leveling up) you can learn a lot more then a low int character.

And if you want to know how being smart can help you in athletics, well watch a documentary on professional athletes and see how study and science impacts their training and improvement.

As for int skills in the game, well, that's very much dependant on DM. Some allow everyone to make a check and return info based on how high you roll and wether or not you are proficient with others you don't get to roll knowledge at all as it never comes up. Depending on that you have a real reason to dump or boost int. (usually if there is a wizard in the party that's enough).

Oh and before people complain that if you just roll high on a knowledge check without being proficient that you shouldn't in the first place, go watch LotR: Fellowship of the ring. There should be a scene where the high int caster is stumped at a riddle and a halfling rogue guesses the right answer. And if it's good enough for Tolkien, it's good enough for DnD.

Lombra

2017-01-01, 09:57 AM

Charisma is as powerful as your DM lets it be: it is just a spellcasting stat, very useful for saves, and has social options. Although you are not going to ask the king to make you the new heir with a Persuasion check. Social checks happen when you have the possibility to succeed in that task, you will never be able to persuade a random guy in stabbing his loved daughter (except by magical means, but that's not the point).

As for the "Intimidation should be based on Strength" the DM can (and is specified even in the books), under player-created circumstances, use a different ability for any check. If a barbarian breaks the skull of a goblin on the floor and proceeds to intimidate the restrained goblin hostage a DM may allow an Intimidation (STR) check, or an Intimidation (CHA) with advantage. One could use intellicence to acquire informations (investigation) that will make easier a deception check. One could use perception to understand a certain situation that will help him decide which merchant to trust. RP should always be rewarded, and that's a circular subjective argument, so let's never touch again this can of worms (like the past minor illusion thread) and follow as we all should what the DM thinks is be right, because that's how it works.

Syll

2017-01-01, 09:57 AM

And then we have dex: (like I said before), major save against AoE dmg effects (It's like a high dex and save proficiency gives you resistance vs AoE magic), it has some of the strongest skills in the game (after perception generally come acrobatics and stealth), governs AC (except heavy armour), initiative, and both ranged and melee attacks (when finesse applies).

Wait really? Acrobatics and Stealth in your experience are the 2nd and 3rd most useful skills after perception? Stealth has uses sure (although limited, in my experience by the loudness of the rest of the party) But I'm really curious about Acrobatics making the cut. I always find it interesting to discover what others' "normal" is, if it's significantly different than mine. I would put Persuasion and either Insight or Investigation in those spots, for instance.

Of course, that's not to say Dex isn't a very powerful stat. But for all that it does, it doesn't have a monopoly on social interactions as well as powering the casting of 3 of the 6 full casters and PLD, which is very popular with most anyone who wants to be a melee mage.

Edit: For clarity, I'm not arguing that CHA is a stronger ability score than DEX

Fishyninja

2017-01-01, 10:02 AM

Dr. Cliché

2017-01-01, 10:52 AM

Int is logical for an increased learning of skills as it governs how intelligent you are and subsequently (not arguing that this is realistic, though it does work form a verisimilitude standpoint) how good you are at learning stuff. As you have increased cognitive function you get better at skills as you pick them up quicker or need to invest less time to pick them up. So in the same amount of rime (roughly between leveling up) you can learn a lot more then a low int character.

See, I think this only really applies to more mental skills - not physical ones.

And if you want to know how being smart can help you in athletics, well watch a documentary on professional athletes and see how study and science impacts their training and improvement.

Again, I have to disagree. People could train themselves in athletics of one form or another long before there was any (known) science behind it. It might give a slight edge, but intellect is far from necessary.

I also think that you are, how shall I put it, overestimating the intellect of many athletes. :smalltongue:

napoleon_in_rag

2017-01-01, 11:26 AM

Never heard of a rule like that. As far as I know, the retainers and henchmen are able to be ran by the PCs, baring a morale check failure or something the DM considers out of character.

Now that I am home, I can look this up. Since you are a fan of BECMI, I will dust off my copy of the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. Page 132. At the very beginning of the "Non Player Character" Chapter.

"A retainer is a person hired by a character to help on an adventure or a series of adventures. Retainers are sometimes called "hirelings." Retainers are never characters run by players; retainers are always NPCs run by the DM." (Emphasis mine)

I remember my DM having lots of fun interpreting the orders a PC gave to his/her retainers. This is the same in every edition (with a couple of exceptions like familiars).

It goes on to say:

"The DM may prefer that PCs not hire retainers in his campaign. This decision is especially common when there are plenty of PCs to accomplish the campaign's adventures, or when the player characters are strong enough to handle the adventure's dangers. In games with only a few players or with weak and inexperienced characters, the DM usually permits the PCs to hire retainers." (Emphasis mine)

You seem to think that the D&D game designers wanted every player with high charisma to have multiple Henchmen like they were additional PCs. This is a big misinterpretation of the D&D rules. Running an adventure with a bunch of henchmen was an occasional thing when you couldn't get a large enough group of players. In my own experience, it usually happened when a player couldn't make game night for some reason.

DMs don't balance encounters in BECMI or AD&D 1e. That's a 3e onwards conceit.

Balancing the game has always been a part of D&D. The Rules Cyclopedia has a whole section on it on page 100.

So that leaves the "Reaction Role" as the only real effect that Charisma had in BECMI. In my experience as both a player and a DM, this was a weak effect. Especially if you chose the member of the party with the highest Charisma to act as the spokesperson. So as long as the party had one person with a 13 Charisma, you were fine. There was never a good reason to have an 18 Charisma.

Socratov

2017-01-01, 11:28 AM

Wait really? Acrobatics and Stealth in your experience are the 2nd and 3rd most useful skills after perception? Stealth has uses sure (although limited, in my experience by the loudness of the rest of the party) But I'm really curious about Acrobatics making the cut. I always find it interesting to discover what others' "normal" is, if it's significantly different than mine. I would put Persuasion and either Insight or Investigation in those spots, for instance.

Of course, that's not to say Dex isn't a very powerful stat. But for all that it does, it doesn't have a monopoly on social interactions as well as powering the casting of 3 of the 6 full casters and PLD, which is very popular with most anyone who wants to be a melee mage.

Edit: For clarity, I'm not arguing that CHA is a stronger ability score than DEX
Well, acrobatics, along with the ability to overcome obstacles like climbing and jumping, allows you to defend from grapples. In fact, apart form Athletics it's the only way to defend from grappling (well, along with the obvious freedom of movement spell but that also references the acrobatics skill).

See, I think this only really applies to more mental skills - not physical ones.

Again, I have to disagree. People could train themselves in athletics of one form or another long before there was any (known) science behind it. It might give a slight edge, but intellect is far from necessary.

I also think that you are, how shall I put it, overestimating the intellect of many athletes. :smalltongue:

Professional athletes have coaches and trainers to provide the intellect. However, if you are looking at for instance running, you can train running the conventional way by just taking step after step. However, that only brings you so far on the physical side, once you learn to pace you running, learn about motion theory (what sequence of muscles used yields the most efficient movement), how to improve your metabolism from a diet point of view, and the list goes on. And that's only on the physical and personal level. Then comes the race: how to work with stress factors, how to pace a race, what parts of a track work to your advantage or disadvantage, that is where intelligence and I will admit wisdom will help you win a race or overcome a challenge.

By the way, I'm not arguing that int should give more skillpoints as in 3.5 that did not go as well (though int to give more languages is a good idea)

Naanomi

2017-01-01, 11:54 AM

I played one game that sat somewhere between 1st and 2nd edition where henchmen played an important role. My character had abysmal Charisma (I didn't 'dump' it, since we just rolled straight down the line) and at high levels I sort of felt like a (powerful) henchmen of one of the more charismatic characters... they ran the stronghold, negotiated with nobles... I just cast spells and acted as Lore-master for a certain set of skills. I did have high Comliness for what that mattered :smallbiggrin:

Syll

2017-01-01, 12:34 PM

Well, acrobatics, along with the ability to overcome obstacles like climbing and jumping, allows you to defend from grapples. In fact, apart form Athletics it's the only way to defend from grappling (well, along with the obvious freedom of movement spell but that also references the acrobatics skill).

Professional athletes have coaches and trainers to provide the intellect. However, if you are looking at for instance running, you can train running the conventional way by just taking step after step. However, that only brings you so far on the physical side, once you learn to pace you running, learn about motion theory (what sequence of muscles used yields the most efficient movement), how to improve your metabolism from a diet point of view, and the list goes on. And that's only on the physical and personal level. Then comes the race: how to work with stress factors, how to pace a race, what parts of a track work to your advantage or disadvantage, that is where intelligence and I will admit wisdom will help you win a race or overcome a challenge.

By the way, I'm not arguing that int should give more skillpoints as in 3.5 that did not go as well (though int to give more languages is a good idea)

Ah; from my playing the only time I've needed to roll acrobatics was if I initiated the check (leaping over a table, rather than going around it, for instance) or if I asked the DM if I could roll it to see if I landed prone or not, after a fall. We don't frequently face things that use grapple.

About the athletes; judging by the Olympics we have athletes that break world records every time... so I would be inclined to agree it's the result of a greater scientific understanding and application of those discoveries.

INT providing skill points however provided an important use for the attribute (besides wizards) that it no longer has. In the absence of that, I think it needs -something- else.... something like Persuasion, maybe :p

Socratov

2017-01-01, 02:20 PM

Ah; from my playing the only time I've needed to roll acrobatics was if I initiated the check (leaping over a table, rather than going around it, for instance) or if I asked the DM if I could roll it to see if I landed prone or not, after a fall. We don't frequently face things that use grapple.

About the athletes; judging by the Olympics we have athletes that break world records every time... so I would be inclined to agree it's the result of a greater scientific understanding and application of those discoveries.

INT providing skill points however provided an important use for the attribute (besides wizards) that it no longer has. In the absence of that, I think it needs -something- else.... something like Persuasion, maybe :p

Well, actually it has: investigation - the ability to either find the info you are looking for or the ability to find out where else you can look. Besides that knowledge skills should be more useful then they frequently seem to be: it's knowledge that can tell you that trolls fear fire and acid. It's knowledge skills that tell you of local customs, what certain creatures can do and can't stand. etc. A lot of the knowledge checks are often passed even if they should be more prolific.

On the other hand, Int has been a very important attribute for quite some time, maybe it's nice other abilities get the chance to shine.

BlackDragonKing

2017-01-01, 03:51 PM

This is an interesting flip around in player opinion from 3.5, where Intelligence was blatantly overpowered for governing all skill access and Charisma is THE dump stat. Hell, in Pathfinder it was trivially easy to make a wizard with 7 CHA that was still better at diplomacy than Bards because Paizo designed too many ways to make things that ran off CHA run off INT instead.

Frankly I still think people are putting too much emphasis on "IT GETS SOCIAL SKILLS OP OP OP".

Yeah, and having high intelligence mean every knowledge check or riddle solution is at your fingertips, you tell me which is more important if you're trying to clear a cursed tomb where the sphinx will disembowel you if the first words out of your mouth aren't the answer to her riddle. Investigation depends a bit more on how the DM plays it, but it can be THE way to gather information in a local area, or downright ****ing mandatory for trap-duty. So Charismatic characters can talk people around, with three different flavors. Intelligent characters KNOW STUFF and can find more out. Both of these are important, and there are many cases, like dungeon crawling, where knowing your stuff is MUCH more powerful than being persuasive.

Survival, Perception, and Insight are all hugely important skills and Wisdom saves are much more common than charisma saves. Unwise adventuring parties are DEAD adventuring parties. Wise characters know how to get along in the wild. They know how to spot the ambush, see the trap, pull the thorn from the lion's paw and live, or get a hunch that vizier guy your charismatic friend is talking to didn't mean what he said when he was "persuaded" to "help" you find the magic lamp.

Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidation are handy skills, but you know what else is handy? All knowledge skills, Investigation, Perception, Insight, and Survival. In many cases, they're MORE handy than social skills for your usual job of exploring the enchanted forests, busting tombs, and kicking bad guy butt.

But even in intrigue-heavy campaigns where Charisma is important to wheel and deal with NPCs, you are a fool if you think you can neglect your other mental stats. Without Wisdom and the Perception and Insight expertise it brings, you will be Ned Stark'd in three sessions tops because nobody could detect the treacherous courier's lies. Something mysterious happens that bears some investigating? Oh gosh, it's almost like we need intelligence to INVESTIGATE THINGS BETTER.

5e is about as balanced out as I've seen stat importance-wise for a D&D edition. I don't think any of the stats are too powerful, and if I was picking a blatantly strongest stat, I'd say either CON, which no class at all can afford to dump while plenty of classes dump CHA, or DEX, which does the most things overall both in and out of combat.

SharkForce

2017-01-01, 06:05 PM

Oh and before people complain that if you just roll high on a knowledge check without being proficient that you shouldn't in the first place, go watch LotR: Fellowship of the ring. There should be a scene where the high int caster is stumped at a riddle and a halfling rogue guesses the right answer. And if it's good enough for Tolkien, it's good enough for DnD.

i'm not convinced that a knowledge check is what was being made in that scene. it was certainly an intelligence check (it was a riddle, after all), but what knowledge would apply? gandalf tried all the "standard" opening words and spells, so no arcana. nobody used their knowledge of history to figure it out either, and it certainly wasn't religion or nature. i see no plausible way to describe that as a knowledge check... it wasn't a question of remembering what the password was. if anything, it was more along the lines of investigation (though i'd be hesitant to assign it to that particular skill).

i'm also not convinced that frodo was not a reasonably intelligent individual, and i'm especially not convinced that he was unproficient in solving riddles (it is mentioned as being a fairly common game for people in general, and hobbits in particular, to play).

djreynolds

2017-01-02, 02:08 AM

I really dig this page

PHB 175.

Variant for skills with different abilities

"Normally, your proficiency in a skill applies only to a
specific kind of ability check. Proficiency in Athletics,
for example, usually applies to Strength checks. In some situations, though, your proficiency might reasonably
apply to a different kind of check. In such cases, the DM
might ask for a check using an unusual combination of
ability and skill, or you might ask your DM if you can
apply a proficiency to a different check. For example,
if you have to swim from an offshore island to the
mainland, your DM might call for a Constitution check
to see if you have the stamina to make it that far. In this
case, your DM might allow you to apply your proficiency
in Athletics and ask for a Constitution (Athletics) check.
So if you’re proficient in Athletics, you apply your
proficiency bonus to the Constitution check just as you
would normally do for a Strength (Athletics) check.
Similarly, when your half-orc barbarian uses a display
of raw strength to intimidate an enemy, your DM might
ask for a Strength (Intimidation) check, even though
Intimidation is normally associated with Charisma."
Its not always my crazy ideas either, my table of players has come up with really great combos and I'm starting to like some of the ideas

We have tried with success, an average of dex/wisdom combo for perception and it seems reasonable... it might shoot the cleric in the foot but helps out the rogue a tad, but our rangers really shine

I have been trying to combine other attributes to skills, and it seems to help.

I might lower some astronomical numbers but brings up other lower skills in the process

I have even applied an average of "charisma"/wisdom to animal handling checks

Lombra

2017-01-02, 06:20 AM