What Charisma scores mean to me

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I just like to have a general guide, not force people to act certain ways. These also don't take into account other stats. A 6 Charisma person with 18 Int and 18 Wis is probably going to act different than one with 6's all across.

None the less, here is my newb conversation starter to what Charisma scores mean.

How would you all describe them?

Score
0 Unconscious
1 Blank and expressionless, out of it
2-3 No empathy or awareness of others, accidentally starts fights frequently
4-5 Frequently uninteresting, rude, or boorish, unpleasant to be around
6-7 Dull and not socially refined but people don't dislike you
8-9 A bit quiet, not a leader, fun in the right environment. Can copy a good joke
10-11 Average, fits in where they are familiar with.
12-13 Fits in many places, knows what to say
14-15 People gravitate towards this interesting person
16-17 Popular in any situation, can talk people into things or a performer
18-19 Magnetic personality, strangers will follow you or provide assistance
20-21 The cult of personality, I'd take a bullet for this stranger
22-23 Has a hypnotizing effect on others
24-25 Actually does hypnotize you.

[Monavic]

Are you just rewording pathfinders ability descriptions?https://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores/#The_Abilities
I like to think of abilities abstractly. As a high cha can be good looks and likability, but it could also be someone who has a large force of personality. Someone may even be scarred and ugly but they inspire loyalty with their words and actions. On the other hand a beautiful person may be boring and very hard to spend a long time around. It can depend on the class and race also. I think of sorcerers as not casting with their looks but as having a massive force of ego/will that can bend reality.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Monavic, that other list sure did inspire me. I think their score system runs higher than 5e's so I modified that a bit.

Also, I agree. Charisma does not mean attractive. It doesn't hurt though. If I recall there was a South Park episode somewhat on the subject lol.

[Unoriginal]

Just to say, a legendary leader that people are willing to die for after a few victories has 18 in CHA, according to the Volo's.

[Naanomi]

Charisma is in many ways the hardest stat to quantify this way; because it represents both a wide range of expressive social skills (though not receptive, Insight is Wisdom-based); and a general 'force of personality/internal drive'. A scary guy who everyone is terrified of but no one would 'follow' may have high charisma. An easy to forget master liar may have high charisma. A sorcerer with amazing presence but no people skills at all may have high charisma...

[hamishspence]

Skill points and feats play a part in this.

"Scary guy whom no-one will follow" has points in Intimidate but none in Diplomacy, and no Leadership feat.

"Forgettable master liar" has maxed-out Bluff.

And "sorcerer" might not have put much in the way of points in any notable Social Skills.

[Tanarii]

Charisma is how strong your 'presence' is, as well as social interaction ability.

Low charisma scores don't necessarily mean ugly or rough or boorish. Some people like that can be quite charismatic. A beat up, crude, and contentious sailor who interacts with lots of people daily to get what he wants might be Cha 12. Possibly with Intimidation if he's particularly good an cowing his social betters with his repugnant behavior.

Meanwhile low charisma characters as tending to be meek, withdrawn, possibly even neurotic. Ie most Sages / TRPG players at a social event / Academics could be expected to have a Cha 8.

[Squiddish]

Just a note, if you have a charisma of 1 or 2, you are less charismatic than a frog, snake, rat, or giant spider, and substantially less charismatic than a wolf, a horse, or most birds.

[Quoxis]

Just a note, if you have a charisma of 1 or 2, you are less charismatic than a frog, snake, rat, or giant spider, and substantially less charismatic than a wolf, a horse, or most birds.

F*cking furries! :P

[BurgerBeast]

The problem with the mental stats is that the underlying concepts are not universal. They are relative. (They are still objective and qualitative, just not universal.)

What do I mean? Well, if your strength is 14, it's 14 all the time under all circumstances (and when it's not, such as when an effect increases or decreases it, it always increases or decreases from 14). This makes sense because that's the kind of thing strength is: universal.

But that's not the kind of thing Charisma is. In the real world, it makes absolutely no sense to quantify charisma, which is why we don't do it (or when we do, it becomes highly controversial and/or politicized). That's because, for example, my wife's estimation of my charisma score is significantly different than my dentist's estimation of my charisma score.


Intelligence is the mental attribute that is easiest to "believe" is universal, because of IQ. But it isn't. Intelligence is based on context. We can get into deeper debates about g and cognition, but whether there is such a thing as general computational capacity (and I do suspect that there is), it's beside the point of an Intelligence score. It makes sense that a wizard with 18 intelligence is "less intelligent" than a barbarian with 10 intelligence in some contexts.

Wisdom is a poorly chosen name for the ability score, because the word wisdom is so directly connected to lived experience that it cannot be a static score (i.e. It must increase with age). It would seem that if you wanted to know how "wise" an adventurer is, you'd do better to look at his experience total. So the game term wisdom cannot mean this. It must mean something like willpower or perceptiveness that is more appropriate.

The result of putting thought into this problem is that the mental ability scores do not (cannot) represent the things that the regular words represent. They must represent something more constant and universally applicable.

For the reasons found above, I consider Intelligence to simply be an "arcane potential" score, but am okay with it being a "cognition" score as well.

Wisdom is something akin to Spirit or Piety. It is the amount of divine potential one is born with.


Charisma is presence or soul strength, the amount of potential one is born with. Low-charisma characters do not have the "soul power" to influence the world beyond physical interaction, but high-charisma characters can exert influence through mental effort or, at the highest levels, just by "being."

Reducing the mental attributes in this way does a few things: it liberates players from being bound by scores, ending the petty arguments about: your character is too dumb to do that, or my character is too smart to do that, etc; it makes in game sense because, for examples, Sorcerers are not powerful casters because they are smooth talkers or really attractive... they're genuinely powerful.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

The problem with the mental stats is that the underlying concepts are not universal. They are relative. (They are still objective and qualitative, just not universal.)

What do I mean? Well, if your strength is 14, it's 14 all the time under all circumstances (and when it's not, such as when an effect increases or decreases it, it always increases or decreases from 14). This makes sense because that's the kind of thing strength is: universal.

But that's not the kind of thing Charisma is. In the real world, it makes absolutely no sense to quantify charisma, which is why we don't do it (or when we do, it becomes highly controversial and/or politicized). That's because, for example, my wife's estimation of my charisma score is significantly different than my dentist's estimation of my charisma score.


Intelligence is the mental attribute that is easiest to "believe" is universal, because of IQ. But it isn't. Intelligence is based on context. We can get into deeper debates about g and cognition, but whether there is such a thing as general computational capacity (and I do suspect that there is), it's beside the point of an Intelligence score. It makes sense that a wizard with 18 intelligence is "less intelligent" than a barbarian with 10 intelligence in some contexts.

Wisdom is a poorly chosen name for the ability score, because the word wisdom is so directly connected to lived experience that it cannot be a static score (i.e. It must increase with age). It would seem that if you wanted to know how "wise" an adventurer is, you'd do better to look at his experience total. So the game term wisdom cannot mean this. It must mean something like willpower or perceptiveness that is more appropriate.

The result of putting thought into this problem is that the mental ability scores do not (cannot) represent the things that the regular words represent. They must represent something more constant and universally applicable.

For the reasons found above, I consider Intelligence to simply be an "arcane potential" score, but am okay with it being a "cognition" score as well.

Wisdom is something akin to Spirit or Piety. It is the amount of divine potential one is born with.


Charisma is presence or soul strength, the amount of potential one is born with. Low-charisma characters do not have the "soul power" to influence the world beyond physical interaction, but high-charisma characters can exert influence through mental effort or, at the highest levels, just by "being."

Reducing the mental attributes in this way does a few things: it liberates players from being bound by scores, ending the petty arguments about: your character is too dumb to do that, or my character is too smart to do that, etc; it makes in game sense because, for examples, Sorcerers are not powerful casters because they are smooth talkers or really attractive... they're genuinely powerful.

I think the rolling system for skill checks helps balance some scores out to real life like events.

Some nights I have it, people want to talk to me and people at work follow so well they almost obey. Other nights I roll a 2, I'm dressed wrong or am preoccupied or something and its like pulling teeth lol.

[Morty]

What your Charisma score means is how big a number you add to some checks and values. How it affects your character depends on you, your GM, your campaign and your fellow players and their PCs. Trying to assign meanings to every particular score is pretty useless. Even in 5e, your ability score is not the only thing deciding how good you are at something. Besides, a score of 16 means something different in a campaign with high point-buy, low point-buy, or rolling for attributes. To say nothing of what sort of NPCs the GM will use.

[GlenSmash!]

Charisma is your ability to get others to do what you want them to do, and not have others get you to do what they want you to do. How you go about this can vary wildly from character to character.

I can easy see a character with high charisma that is rude, boorish, and unpleasant to be around using those exact qualities to get people to do what she wants them to do, if just to get her to go away afterward.

The best example of this I've found in fiction is Sand dan Glokta from the First Law Trilogy. He know's he's ugly, so he sticks his ugly face right up in someones face, and smiles his ugliest smile to put them off guard and get what he wants. It's very effective.

To me a low charisma is not someone that is disliked or even hated, but someone that is unnoticeable. Like Ann from Arrested Development.

[Naanomi]

To me a low charisma is not someone that is disliked or even hated, but someone that is unnoticeable. Like Ann from Arrested Development.
Except of course if you intentionally wanted to be 'unnoticeable' would be likely be rolling Charisma+(Deception/Performance?) checks...

[GlenSmash!]

Except of course if you intentionally wanted to be 'unnoticeable' would be likely be rolling Charisma+(Deception/Performance?) checks...

Ooh! I hadn't thought of that. Very true, the high charisma character gets a choice in the matter.

[smcmike]

I'm getting tired of agreeing with Burgerbeast, TBH, but I almost typed up something similar to what he posted.

The physical attributes are rough measures, but they have quantifiable correlates in the real word. Intelligence does too, though of course this is a matter of some debate - my sense is that our idea of intelligence is a gross generalization, but that there are a number of different quantifiable inteligences, in the same way that one could measure strength or dexterity a number of different ways, with the understanding that what we are really measuring includes training for those tasks.

Wisdom and Charisma are more ambiguous.

This edition doesn't really emphasize willpower as an aspect of wisdom, apart from saving throws. It's primarily a measure of understanding - understanding social situations, maladies, and the physical world around you. This is hard to measure, but corresponds to something that I think is real, and also separate from analytical intelligence.

Charisma is almost completely ineffable. It's the IT factor, what makes someone a star. The real problem is that even stars can be insufferable. That guy who is great at small talk and is able to be completely comfortable in every social context? Yeah, everyone hates him, and calls him fake behind his back. The super-intense guy, who draws people in with his magnetic gaze? Most people think he is just a weirdo. Etc etc.

Which doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I say express it however you like. Charisma can be loud and abrasive and pushy. It can be soft and gentle and sweet. It can be dark and brooding and beautiful. Heck, it can even be stonefaced and boring - diplomats, card players, and police interrogators often just bore you into giving them what they want.

[GlenSmash!]

I say express it however you like. Charisma can be loud and abrasive and pushy. It can be soft and gentle and sweet. It can be dark and brooding and beautiful. Heck, it can even be stonefaced and boring - diplomats, card players, and police interrogators often just bore you into giving them what they want.

Very well said.

[Tanarii]

What your Charisma score means is how big a number you add to some checks and values. How it affects your character depends on you, your GM, your campaign and your fellow players and their PCs. Trying to assign meanings to every particular score is pretty useless. This is the best response in this thread. I'm changing mine to it. :smallwink:

[Hrugner]

Except of course if you intentionally wanted to be 'unnoticeable' would be likely be rolling Charisma+(Deception/Performance?) checks...

So maybe it's better to say that charisma is how well you can control how others perceive you. The difference between someone looking powerful or just big, someone being brilliant or a know it all, wise or condescending, and so on.

[Naanomi]

Charisma saving throws seem pretty arbitrary as well... it is almost always used to resist being forced to change plane; and magic that directly influences your soul... but also sometimes to resist having an illusion on yourself (seeming), resist some curses (bane), and resist some forms of mind control (calm emotions, zone of truth, symbol: hopelessness)

[PhoenixPhyre]

For me, charisma represents force of will/sense of self. A highly charismatic person can be ugly, but they carry you along with them just because of who they are. Think a demogogue who can stir a crowd with a few words. Often religious zealous fall into this, as do great politicians.

Sorcerers, warlocks, and bards (and paladins) cast spells by basically having enough strength of will to tell the world to get bent in a specific way and have it over. It helps against effects that would make one lose sense of self or become untethered from this reality.

A low charisma person just didn't have this force. They're unsure of themselves, they're timid, or otherwise lacking in sense of self. Note that you can be persuasive even with low charisma, it just takes training (proficiency/expertise).

Anyway, that's my head Canon for charisma.

[smcmike]

Yeah, wisdom is adapting to the world, charisma is adapting the world to you.

[SaurOps]

Just a note, if you have a charisma of 1 or 2, you are less charismatic than a frog, snake, rat, or giant spider, and substantially less charismatic than a wolf, a horse, or most birds.

Those are yet more parts of D&D that deserve to be questioned and which would likely be found wanting.

[Aembrosia]

People, the city folk, called me a barbarian well before i ever flew into my first rage. A child of Uthgar, I was born to the bear tribe. Now, common wasnt my first language which has made things hard but ive tried. Ive really tried to practice talking to people, being cordial, likable. I want to be liked.

Proficiency in persuasion.

I can catch an eye from time to time... which may actually work against me. Closer inspection only emphasizes my battle scars, leaving strangers unsettled as they consider if ive killed more people than theyve met. They're not wrong...

10 charisma.



Edit: just throw this out there too - a hellspawn cloven hooved death giant covered in gore and viscera, with gigantic bat's wings and a ram's skull for a head; wielding a spinal cord - has 25 charisma.

[137beth]

What your Charisma score means is how big a number you add to some checks and values. How it affects your character depends on you, your GM, your campaign and your fellow players and their PCs. Trying to assign meanings to every particular score is pretty useless. Even in 5e, your ability score is not the only thing deciding how good you are at something. Besides, a score of 16 means something different in a campaign with high point-buy, low point-buy, or rolling for attributes. To say nothing of what sort of NPCs the GM will use.


This is the best response in this thread. I'm changing mine to it. :smallwink:

This one. I used to try assigning meanings to individual scores. Every time I tried, I'd then think about it a little more and realize "no, that doesn't make any sense! I better change my descriptions to make them make sense."
And eventually I just gave up. A numerical Charisma score really doesn't make sense, no matter how you pad it. It's a convenience we use for the game, and trying to extend it beyond such a convenience can only end in frustration.

[Tanarii]

This one. I used to try assigning meanings to individual scores. Every time I tried, I'd then think about it a little more and realize "no, that doesn't make any sense! I better change my descriptions to make them make sense."
And eventually I just gave up. A numerical Charisma score really doesn't make sense, no matter how you pad it. It's a convenience we use for the game, and trying to extend it beyond such a convenience can only end in frustration.
This is the case for many game mechanics. They're there as a tool for resolving declared actions. Not as some kind of metaphysical representation or structure underlying the in-game universe.

To assume otherwise is to end up with the Order of the Stick universe, or Erfworld, or Tippyverse.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This is the case for many game mechanics. They're there as a tool for resolving declared actions. Not as some kind of metaphysical representation or structure underlying the in-game universe.

To assume otherwise is to end up with the Order of the Stick universe, or Erfworld, or Tippyverse.

I agree. While outright dissonance between rules implications and setting are bad, the rules and mechanics are explicitly user interface--they're there to make the game playable. Far from detracting from my enjoyment, this understanding removes the "but, if..." Distractions I feel whenever I try to think of mechanics as in-universe realities.

[Finger6842]

Boiling down all of these responses, other than the mechanical advantage on a skill check the number means nothing.

Have 2 PCs, one has a 20 charisma and the other has an 8, go into a shop to buy a healing potion. it's the judgment of this group that the shop keeper will respond to both characters equally. Want a discount, haggle by rolling a persuasion check. On a pass both would receive identical discounts assuming they made the same argument. The real question is why didn't the shop keeper offer a discount up front to the more magnetic character without the skill check just as you see in RL?

My point is that skill checks at some point have become obligatory far too often. Have a passive perception of 19? Why does the player have to "search" for everything? I'm just saying, not once have I seen a PC discover the loot or gain a discount without some kind of skill check. With a completion, regardless of the differences in total number/skill the results will be identical for both characters. With that in mind, outside of the skill check numbers have no meaning.

This is what I believe spawns the murder hobo. The PC's have no faith that encounters can be resolved without combat and losing surprise will increase the likelihood of player death. Furthermore there is often no hesitation on the NPC's part based on the intimidation or persuasion factors. All too often the NPC's ignore the commanding presence of the 20 Charisma instead of initiating or responding with diplomacy. Anyone have a good story about how this was resolved? It may shed more light on the OP's list.

[djreynolds]

Babies must have a high charisma... otherwise babies wouldn't be cute..... as they look very awkward......and yet for some reason they force with us their "mind control" to feed them and clean up their messes and pay extraordinary amounts of money on silly stuff they become bored in seconds and give headaches and gastric issues

[Finger6842]

Babies must have a high charisma... otherwise babies wouldn't be cute..... as they look very awkward......and yet for some reason they force with us their "mind control" to feed them and clean up their messes and pay extraordinary amounts of money on silly stuff they become bored in seconds and give headaches and gastric issues

LOL! Hilarious and sadly true.

[Spore]

Babies have a racial ability for advantage. And despite the public opinion not all kids are cute.

[BurgerBeast]

I'm not a fan of the "Charisma score is meaningless" camp. Certainly it is true that the best answer is that it is the modifier (or whatever that answer was), but to then move to "it's meaningless" or "it can be whatever you want" is a big mistake, in my opinion.

It may be true that it is diffkcult to discern, or that it doesn't match perfectly to something like presence or persuasiveness or attractiveness, but that doesn't mean it means nothing or it means whatever you want.

It is valuable to think about it. Understanding the game and making sense of it always leads to better games.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Babies must have a high charisma... otherwise babies wouldn't be cute..... as they look very awkward......and yet for some reason they force with us their "mind control" to feed them and clean up their messes and pay extraordinary amounts of money on silly stuff they become bored in seconds and give headaches and gastric issues

I agree. I think we are genetically predispositioned to want to care for babies and think they are cute. Our own have advantage on skill checks against us. Others I still find cute but I have considerably shorter tolerance for.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

I'm not a fan of the "Charisma score is meaningless" camp. Certainly it is true that the best answer is that it is the modifier (or whatever that answer was), but to then move to "it's meaningless" or "it can be whatever you want" is a big mistake, in my opinion.

It may be true that it is diffkcult to discern, or that it doesn't match perfectly to something like presence or persuasiveness or attractiveness, but that doesn't mean it means nothing or it means whatever you want.

It is valuable to think about it. Understanding the game and making sense of it always leads to better games.

I think in the interest of roleplaying / being nice to the players, a number of DM's go easy on low Charisma or Wisdom folk. Really you'd need a 6 to be able to regularly bumble a social encounter but still, my character's low strength and high dex seem to be taken into account more often.

[smcmike]

This one. I used to try assigning meanings to individual scores. Every time I tried, I'd then think about it a little more and realize "no, that doesn't make any sense! I better change my descriptions to make them make sense."
And eventually I just gave up. A numerical Charisma score really doesn't make sense, no matter how you pad it. It's a convenience we use for the game, and trying to extend it beyond such a convenience can only end in frustration.


I'm not a fan of the "Charisma score is meaningless" camp. Certainly it is true that the best answer is that it is the modifier (or whatever that answer was), but to then move to "it's meaningless" or "it can be whatever you want" is a big mistake, in my opinion.

It may be true that it is diffkcult to discern, or that it doesn't match perfectly to something like presence or persuasiveness or attractiveness, but that doesn't mean it means nothing or it means whatever you want.

It is valuable to think about it. Understanding the game and making sense of it always leads to better games.

I think there is a middle way. It's good to think about what the scores mean. It's bad to think TOO HARD about what they mean. Floating just above the line where things stop making sense is ideal. Charisma makes total sense from a superficial standpoint. Dig only as deep as you can stand.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think there is a middle way. It's good to think about what the scores mean. It's bad to think TOO HARD about what they mean. Floating just above the line where things stop making sense is ideal. Charisma makes total sense from a superficial standpoint. Dig only as deep as you can stand.

Agreed. There is such a thing as real-world charisma. The game statistic Charisma alludes to this but is not constrained by it. More means more. Trying to quantify it or analyze it too much makes everything break down. Same goes for most things. Accept they're a fuzzy map and reach beyond it. Have fun. That's the point, after all, isn't it?

[Tanarii]

I think in the interest of roleplaying / being nice to the players, a number of DM's go easy on low Charisma or Wisdom folk. Really you'd need a 6 to be able to regularly bumble a social encounter but still, my character's low strength and high dex seem to be taken into account more often.Whereas I personally find that players FAR over-exaggerate the mechanical effect of Low ability scores, especially mental ones. That's why I'm a fan of 'it means what it means mechanically, plus obvious extensions of that'.

Low Scores, say an 8, means you're 5% less likely to be able to accomplish an Ability Check related task than the average Joe. That results in a 10% less chance of success (relatively speaking) against a DC 10 check, and the complete inability to succeed against a DC 20 task. That can be extended logically to non-check things ... you're 5-20% slower/lower quality/worse at most stuff depending on difficulty, and can't succeed even sufficient with time whereas others can.

That doesn't mean it directly translates into specific things like mental handicaps for mental scores, stuttering or ugliness for charisma, or physical handicaps for physical. It can, but those things should have other logical consequences besides the lowered ability score. Because an ability score isn't just one thing, it's a broad category that's used for general resolution of Character 'actions', and as such represents a multitude of factors.

[napoleon_in_rag]

20-21 The cult of personality, I'd take a bullet for this stranger
22-23 Has a hypnotizing effect on others
24-25 Actually does hypnotize you.

While Charisma is important, it shouldn't take the place of any spells or an enchanters abilities. So I don't think Charisma should give you the ability to hypnotize someone or take away their freedom to choose.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

While Charisma is important, it shouldn't take the place of any spells or an enchanters abilities. So I don't think Charisma should give you the ability to hypnotize someone or take away their freedom to choose.

Possibly a valid point. I may be combinimg the ability scores of the sirens and the like with their special abilites. Heck, I may be thinking back to Baldur's Gate lol.

Got any ideas for a good description of the higher scores? Regular humans top out at 20 so this needs to be an effect greater than our largest pop or political icons have.

24- This IS the world's most interesting man. If he stops on the sidewalk to talk about the history of shoe tying such a large crowd gathers the police need called in. ;)

[Morty]

I'm not a fan of the "Charisma score is meaningless" camp. Certainly it is true that the best answer is that it is the modifier (or whatever that answer was), but to then move to "it's meaningless" or "it can be whatever you want" is a big mistake, in my opinion.

It may be true that it is diffkcult to discern, or that it doesn't match perfectly to something like presence or persuasiveness or attractiveness, but that doesn't mean it means nothing or it means whatever you want.

It is valuable to think about it. Understanding the game and making sense of it always leads to better games.

Which is presumably why no one has suggested it's meaningless. What has been suggested is that the expression of any given Charisma score, or any other attribute, for that matter, is a player's choice. Trying to say "14 in Charisma means that, 13 means this" is a waste of time.

[napoleon_in_rag]

I am still a fan of the old BECMI 2d6 reaction chart. You role 2d6 modified for Charisma and consult this. I am not sure how well this will work for 5e modifiers. BECMI topped out at +3.

2 or less - Really Negative effect
3-5 - Negative effect
6-8 - Normal
9-11 - Positive Effect
12 or more - Really positive effect

For example, say you were trying to buy a really expensive magical weapon from a merchant.

2 or less - Merchant refuses to sell it, -1 on reactions from other merchants in city
3-5 - Merchant will sell it for 200% listed price
6-8 - Merchant sells it for listed price
9-11 - Merchant sells it for 90% listed price
12 or more - Merchant sells it for 50% listed price

Of course, this takes away from some of the roleplaying, but that's difficult thing about Charisma, Intelligence, and Wisdom.

[Tanarii]

5e has a social interaction table. It's in the DMG, and it's much more 'RP' friendly, because it's in keeping with two 5e philosophies:
1) the DM is expected to decide if the use of the table is even warranted based on if the player's decisions should result in an automatic success or failure without a check.
2) it's intentionally broad in terms of outcomes.

In other words, 'RP' (talky-time) first, and if the DM decides the outcome is uncertain, roll on the table using Cha (modified by skill if appropriate).

What's nice about it is the table gives you some idea of the kind of things Charisma checks can result in. (A lack of such things being a common complaint against 5e.)

[napoleon_in_rag]

In other words, 'RP' (talky-time) first, and if the DM decides the outcome is uncertain, roll on the table using Cha (modified by skill if appropriate).


This is my point, by making RP more important, it makes Charisma close to meaningless. A quick witted, fast talking player with a low charisma PC will do better than a tongue-tied or shy player with a high charisma PC. Now, if the quick witted player was really role-playing his 6 Charisma character, he would intentionally say something stupid to annoy who he was talking to. But in my experience, that's not going to happen. The old BECMI table did this better.

Its the same with Int and Wis. A person who has been playing D&D through several editions but has a low Int PC will know more than a newbie player with a 18 Int PC. The physical attributes (Str, Dex, Con) have well defined impacts on the game while Mental/ Social attributes do not outside of spellcasting. This is a problem with many RPGs.

[Tanarii]

Depends if the DM is judging automatic success / failure on how well the player smooth-talks or fast-talks her, or on the decision being made as to approach and intended goal.

If she's doing the former, yes, a fast or smooth talking player makes Cha less important. If she's doing the latter, which IMO is the better way to do it, then a quick witted player will probably do better, but the players ability to talk the DM is more irrelevant.

Not that it's easy to completely tune out the wordiness of a player that's really on top of their fast-talking or oratory game. But IMO the core of good DM adjudication is understanding what and how the player wants to accomplish something, then using that to determine if the outcomes and consequences are uncertain or not.

Example: it shouldn't matter how awesome a speech the player gives to the king. What matters is what the player is asking from the king, what method they're trying to use to get it (brow beat/intimidate, impress/boasting, cajole/persuade, etc). Then the DM can determine how likely that method and the request/goal are to succeed.

A smooth talking player may give you a clear indication of what they want in all those words, or they may be trying to throw stuff at the king and see what sticks and you'll need to ask for clarification (possibly in-character as the king). Whereas a blunt and direct statement from a less verbose player might give the DM better clarity.

[napoleon_in_rag]

Example: it shouldn't matter how awesome a speech the player gives to the king. What matters is what the player is asking from the king, what method they're trying to use to get it (brow beat/intimidate, impress/boasting, cajole/persuade, etc). Then the DM can determine how likely that method and the request/goal are to succeed.


But, in the real world, how you say something is more important than what you say. Things like self confidence, posture, looking someone in the eye, tone of voice, how fast you talk, how often do you pause, etc will make the difference even if the words said are exactly the same. A person with a high charisma is going to instinctively do this better regardless of what is being said.

I saw this during my time in the military. Person X would order me to do a boring, dumb task and I would curse them up and down when they weren't around. The next week person Y would order me to do the same thing and I would happily complete the task with no resentment. The task was the exactly the same but how I was ordered was different. And a lot of it are things I was not consciously aware of - Person Y was taller, more athletic, Person X slouched.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But, in the real world, how you say something is more important than what you say. Things like self confidence, posture, looking someone in the eye, tone of voice, how fast you talk, how often do you pause, etc will make the difference even if the words said are exactly the same. A person with a high charisma is going to instinctively do this better regardless of what is being said.

I saw this during my time in the military. Person X would order me to do a boring, dumb task and I would curse them up and down when they weren't around. The next week person Y would order me to do the same thing and I would happily complete the task with no resentment. The task was the exactly the same but how I was ordered was different. And a lot of it are things I was not consciously aware of - Person Y was taller, more athletic, Person X slouched.

I would think that the main thing that good speeches gets you is advantage on the roll. That's 5e's bonus mechanism. Talk well (something specific to the NPC being addressed--not all will respond to flowery speeches after all) and get advantage. Insult the NPC (or try to bribe a paladin, etc) and either auto fail or get disadvantage. Be clear out or in character but no special effort and roll as normal.

[Naanomi]

I would think that the main thing that good speeches gets you is advantage on the roll. That's 5e's bonus mechanism. Talk well (something specific to the NPC being addressed--not all will respond to flowery speeches after all) and get advantage. Insult the NPC (or try to bribe a paladin, etc) and either auto fail or get disadvantage. Be clear out or in character but no special effort and roll as normal.
Or set the DC... having the social awareness of what 'arguments' work well on the GM and playing to the GM's own social cues may set a lower DC than if you were not able to read what to GM wants to hear as well

[Tanarii]

But, in the real world, how you say something is more important than what you say. Things like self confidence, posture, looking someone in the eye, tone of voice, how fast you talk, how often do you pause, etc will make the difference even if the words said are exactly the same. A person with a high charisma is going to instinctively do this better regardless of what is being said.
Right. Which is why a high charisma character or someone trained in the appropriate delivery gets a bonus to the roll. Whereas how the player delivers it should, in theory, have no bearing on if it's automatically successful, or requires a roll, or what the target DC is. The latter should be determined by the WHAT as determined by the player. The PCs skill at the former comes into play with the HOW, which modifies the roll (if one is required).