Use Charisma to attack and damage

[keeper2161]

I made a charisma based character is there any way to use charisma for attack and damage instead of strength?

[mesc]

There is the Bow of songs from MIC uses charisma for attacks and damage but it requires bardic music uses, or if you have a high enough UMD it works too.
Slippers of battle dancing from DMG 2 also uses cha for attacks and damage, but only if you moved 10 ft. That turn and you are using a light or one handed weapon.
There is also the gauntlet of heartfelt blows, but it only adds to damage.

[Arkhios]

In a simulationist game such as Pathfinder, trying to use your Charisma (=your force of personality) as your attack and damage modifier just fails to make any sense in a realistic way. Using your dexterity instead of strength (or vice versa) both in melee or at range does make sense, but not any of the other four abilities. Not really.

Simulations should make sense and feel realistic. Using your force of personality to swing a sword and doing it in a manner that it actually hurts has a huge realistic disconnect.

[Crake]

In a simulationist game such as Pathfinder, trying to use your Charisma (=your force of personality) as your attack and damage modifier just fails to make any sense in a realistic way. Using your dexterity instead of strength (or vice versa) both in melee or at range does make sense, but not any of the other four abilities. Not really.

Simulations should make sense and feel realistic. Using your force of personality to swing a sword and doing it in a manner that it actually hurts has a huge realistic disconnect.

When you bring magic into the equation though, using your force of personality can make PLENTY of sense. One of my players used charming the arrow to get cha to hit on her ranged attacks (I allowed it to work for her gun, despite it specifically only working on arrows), and the reasoning we went with was that she believed she would hit, and thus she did. Kinda like how orks in wh40k believe that red makes things go faster and thus it actually does (that is not a joke, orks legit think that red things go faster, and the power of their believe makes it true).

[Mordaedil]

In a simulationist game such as Pathfinder, trying to use your Charisma (=your force of personality) as your attack and damage modifier just fails to make any sense in a realistic way. Using your dexterity instead of strength (or vice versa) both in melee or at range does make sense, but not any of the other four abilities. Not really.

Simulations should make sense and feel realistic. Using your force of personality to swing a sword and doing it in a manner that it actually hurts has a huge realistic disconnect.

Uuuuhhh... I guess you've never met a paladin or a wizard?

[Arkhios]

Uuuuhhh... I guess you've never met a paladin or a wizard?

If my memory serves, Wizard (universalist) is able to do that, but only a very limited amount of times per day, but that's magic.

And no, I have not heard or seen any paladin (or a wizard) being able to constantly (=without expending any resource) rely on Charisma or Intelligence to make their attacks with a weapon.

I feel I should mention I've played Pathfinder since its alpha. This whole question was about Pathfinder, just FYI, if you thought we were talking about 4th edition or something similar (although I have to admit I've fallen from the Pathfinder Bandwagon about 3 years ago, so I might have not seen what came afterwards; if something like 4th edition came out, personally, I'll choose to ignore it exists).

[Mystral]

In a simulationist game such as Pathfinder, trying to use your Charisma (=your force of personality) as your attack and damage modifier just fails to make any sense in a realistic way. Using your dexterity instead of strength (or vice versa) both in melee or at range does make sense, but not any of the other four abilities. Not really.

Simulations should make sense and feel realistic. Using your force of personality to swing a sword and doing it in a manner that it actually hurts has a huge realistic disconnect.

On the scale of simulation versus gaming versus narration, pathfinder sits comfortably at the gaming side of the spectrum.

[Mystral]

I made a charisma based character is there any way to use charisma for attack and damage instead of strength?

A few more informations would be good.

The traditional way of using charisma to attack is making a charisma based spellcaster and chucking magic as your attack. One can also feint in combat.

If nothing else, things can be houseruled. Using charisma in combat makes as much sense as using dex in combat, you just need to expend the same amount of feats to make it fair and find a somewhat decent explanation (maybe magic, maybe divine support, maybe psionics, maybe your character bluffs your enemy into making mistakes and exploits those for damage).

[Arkhios]

On the scale of simulation versus gaming versus narration, pathfinder sits comfortably at the gaming side of the spectrum.

Maybe, maybe not. That's your assesment, and I disagree with it. It's nothing personal, mind you.

Pathfinder (at least "1st edition") was, when I played it regularly, still very similar to 3.5. And that includes the point I was trying to make: most (if not all) options that came out, at least tried to make sense. As I admitted above, I might not have seen all of the new stuff that makes it possible, but I'd hazard a guess that any feature that enables a character to use an ability score other than strength or dexterity to attack with a weapon is purely magical. And that's fine. If you can find a reasonable explanation why magic should let it happen, then go for it. But at its core, the question I answered to didn't mention anything about magic.

[Caudex Capite]

You might look at the X Stat to Y Bonus lists found here (http://minmaxforum.com/index.php?topic=4369.0). Looks like Holy Gun Paladin and Divine Fighting Style: Way of the Shooting Star are your only real options for damage in PF content, both with significant limitations, though attack is a bit easier.

[Mystral]

Maybe, maybe not. That's your assesment, and I disagree with it. It's nothing personal, mind you.

Pathfinder (at least "1st edition") was, when I played it regularly, still very similar to 3.5. And that includes the point I was trying to make: most (if not all) options that came out, at least tried to make sense.

Simulationist gaming systems arent defined by having rules that "make sense", they are defined as trying to depict reality as close as possible. Pathfinder has a lot of abstractions that run counter to such a design and are typical for a gamist system. In fact, D&D 3.5, the parent system, is often seen as the poster child of gamist roleplaying systems.

A good example for a simulationist game would be GURPS.

And even in a simulationist game, you can have "charisma to attack and damage" make sense. You just need to use magic, either as an innate characteristic of the character or by a magic item. For example a character might obtain a magical sword that grows more powerfull the more charming its user gets (maybe it is intelligent and needs to be talked into using its full potential).

[Mordaedil]

Maybe, maybe not. That's your assesment, and I disagree with it. It's nothing personal, mind you.

Pathfinder (at least "1st edition") was, when I played it regularly, still very similar to 3.5. And that includes the point I was trying to make: most (if not all) options that came out, at least tried to make sense.
I'm sorry, but simulationist isn't exactly the correct terminology to use when it comes to Pathfinder. I think you mean "it takes steps to create verisimilitude", but that isn't the same as "simulationist". I mean, at the end of the day you are tossing dice at a table and nothing tells you how a swing works, which is what a simulationist system would do. The game is more interested in keeping a pace going and that has been true of D&D since the early days. It favors abstractions over detail and that is the anti-thesis of simulation.

If Pathfinder was going for a simulationist vibe, then the gunslinger would have to carefully weight their gunpowder for ammunition, the wizard would need to keep track of his reagents rather than simply calling it a day after buying a spell component pouch. The rules would have more diseases and things for traveling and wearing armor would have more significant "simulated" penalties.

This then isn't really a matter of "perspective" or "personal assessment". It's just an objective fact that Pathfinder is incredibly gamey and not a simulation.

I mean, it has bloody magic doing damage in dice. That is firmly in the gaming camp, not simulation.

[gkathellar]

In a simulationist game such as Pathfinder, trying to use your Charisma (=your force of personality) as your attack and damage modifier just fails to make any sense in a realistic way. Using your dexterity instead of strength (or vice versa) both in melee or at range does make sense, but not any of the other four abilities. Not really.

Simulations should make sense and feel realistic. Using your force of personality to swing a sword and doing it in a manner that it actually hurts has a huge realistic disconnect.

So I guess you've never fenced? Because in any real fight, intellect, intuition, and the ability to manipulate your own mental state and that of your opponent are enormously important. And of course, the notion that you could make any melee attack without factoring in both strength and agility is absurd, and really constitution should figure in too, since even a few moments of proper execution can be enormously draining. If PF were a "simulation," you'd have a complex formula factoring in all six ability scores (more, probably, since the six ability scores themselves only offer the barest approximation of how real human ability functions) to melee combat.

Of course, that would be obnoxiously and uselessly complicated, which is why games focus on the reproduction of an aesthetic via abstractions. Charisma-to-hit allows you to represent characters like Galahad, who has the strength of ten men because his heart is pure, and that's all that it needs to do to be justified.

[tadkins]

Try to create a version of the Dashing Swordsman (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html) class for Pathfinder? xD

[Ninjaxenomorph]

The PoW Rajah class has an ability that lets them use their charisma to attack, and in a limited capacity to damage. The damage only applies when you are actually in melee rather than projecting through allies (the class is basically a wizard with initiating abilities), and I don’t think it’s ever modified by being two-handed.

[Arkhios]

So I guess you've never fenced? Because in any real fight, intellect, intuition, and the ability to manipulate your own mental state and that of your opponent are enormously important. And of course, the notion that you could make any melee attack without factoring in both strength and agility is absurd, and really constitution should figure in too, since even a few moments of proper execution can be enormously draining. If PF were a "simulation," you'd have a complex formula factoring in all six ability scores (more, probably, since the six ability scores themselves only offer the barest approximation of how real human ability functions) to melee combat.

Of course, that would be obnoxiously and uselessly complicated, which is why games focus on the reproduction of an aesthetic via abstractions. Charisma-to-hit allows you to represent characters like Galahad, who has the strength of ten men because his heart is pure, and that's all that it needs to do to be justified.

As a matter of fact, I have. Fenced, I mean. It's true that it's not only about how fast or how strong you punch with the weapon, but at the end of the day, you do the most work in order to hit the target with your physical abilities. Yes, you use your intellect, intuition, and the ability to manipulate your opponent (and to lesser extent your own mental state as well) to make it possible, but to actually hit, you need precision and hand-eye-coordination, and you can't have that without using your body rather than your mind. In terms of this game's statistics: body = str/dex/con, mind = int/wis/cha.

At this point, this discussion has become way too intricate, whether you can or can't use your mind to attack physically, than I'd bother to continue and debate about.

It may be that I used wrong term all along. English isn't my first language -- it's not even a native language to me either -- and I keep forgetting some of the more intricate words, such as verisimilitude (honestly, that is a bit difficult word to remember).

All that said, I guess I'll just withdraw from this topic before I say something I'll regret later.

[Mordaedil]

Yo, English isn't my first language either, but I don't just hide behind that fact whenever I lose an argument.

[Arkhios]

Yo, English isn't my first language either, but I don't just hide behind that fact whenever I lose an argument.

You just had to say that, did you? Does it make you feel better to twist a blade that's already deep in the wound? Tells a lot about you as a person.

For the record, if I were you, I would've just let it be. I made an argument based on wrong terminology, and saw that it crumbled, and withdrew. You just had to say the last hurtful word.

For another note, I still stand behind my argument: Charisma doesn't make sense as an ability score to make a physical attack (unless there is magic or other external help involved).

[gkathellar]

As a matter of fact, I have. Fenced, I mean. It's true that it's not only about how fast or how strong you punch with the weapon, but at the end of the day, you do the most work in order to hit the target with your physical abilities. Yes, you use your intellect, intuition, and the ability to manipulate your opponent (and to lesser extent your own mental state as well) to make it possible, but to actually hit, you need precision and hand-eye-coordination, and you can't have that without using your body rather than your mind. In terms of this game's statistics: body = str/dex/con, mind = int/wis/cha.

At this point, this discussion has become way too intricate, whether you can or can't use your mind to attack physically, than I'd bother to continue and debate about.

It may be that I used wrong term all along. English isn't my first language -- it's not even a native language to me either -- and I keep forgetting some of the more intricate words, such as verisimilitude (honestly, that is a bit difficult word to remember).

All that said, I guess I'll just withdraw from this topic before I say something I'll regret later.

In retrospect, my post was overly aggressive, and I apologize for that.

My intended point, such as it were, was that Pathfinder is already deeply divorced from reality, and that its functioning mechanics are more about replicating the imagery of fantasy - and of the D&D fantasy subgenre in particular - using certain broad, archetypal representations. To me, the realism question in a game like D&D or PF is entirely subordinate to questions of atmosphere and function. I tend to think that the only thing worth noting about charisma-to-hit is that it gives you the tools to represent certain character archetypes.

That said, I don’t think PF consistently adopts this posture by any means, or that it’s particularly good about implementing it. One look at the rules for environments suggests that many of 3.P’s core writers clearly wanted to write a simulationist game. Whether they simply lacked the ability to do so or their endeavor was doomed from the outset is an open question (I tend to say that both are true). The resulting game is almost never realistic but does occasionally succeed in matching the aesthetics of muderhobo fantasy.

FWIW, I do like realism, because reality is full of cool things that this genre frequently leaves out. But I also want my monks to be wise and my paladins to have bishie sparkles, and if the limited conceptual scope of Wisdom or Charisma makes that difficult to implement, then to hell with that. These games are already so abstract that one more twist will fit in just fine.

[Peat]

Already mentioned, but Way of the Shooting Star (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/divine-fighting-technique-combat/) allows Desna worshippers to use CHA for attack and damage when using a Starknife and is probably the simplest and quickest way of doing this (albeit with some significant restrictions).

[Psyren]

Smite Evil/Good gets you Cha to attack. Cha to damage is tougher, but a lot of the time level to damage is going to match or beat it anyway.

[Efrate]

A warlord from path of war gets half cha to attacks made as part of a gambit that requires an attack role. If you discipline swap into mithril current you have a variety of maneuvers that work with perform dance checks.

[Mordaedil]

You just had to say that, did you? Does it make you feel better to twist a blade that's already deep in the wound? Tells a lot about you as a person.

For the record, if I were you, I would've just let it be. I made an argument based on wrong terminology, and saw that it crumbled, and withdrew. You just had to say the last hurtful word.

I'm saying stand your ground or admit you were wrong rather than lie back and say "oh, I'm sorry, my lack of vocabulary or mastery of the English language is at fault here". It makes the rest of us look bad.

Also if having your point be picked apart is causing you to feel "hurt", maybe you need a bit thicker skin. I'm not responsible for maintaining your online pride or whatever.

[Arkhios]

I'm saying stand your ground or admit you were wrong rather than lie back and say "oh, I'm sorry, my lack of vocabulary or mastery of the English language is at fault here". It makes the rest of us look bad.

Also if having your point be picked apart is causing you to feel "hurt", maybe you need a bit thicker skin. I'm not responsible for maintaining your online pride or whatever.

It's common courtesy to respect others' feelings. And common sense to think ahead what your words might cause.

[Mordaedil]

It's common courtesy to respect others' feelings. And common sense to think ahead what your words might cause.

Okay, so answer me this. What about what I said made you feel hurt? Once you answer that, maybe you can pull yourself together.

[TiaC]

Try to create a version of the Dashing Swordsman (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0390.html) class for Pathfinder? xD

This actually exists. Dreamscarred Press's 2016 April Fool's release has it. You can find it for free on their site or at DriveThruRPG.

[Yogibear41]

Weapon Panache feat from 3rd party book Assassins's handbook is 3.0 weapon finesse using Charisma instead of dex.

[Arkhios]

Okay, so answer me this. What about what I said made you feel hurt? Once you answer that, maybe you can pull yourself together.


"Yo, English isn't my first language either, but I don't just hide behind that fact whenever I lose an argument."

You pointing out that you're not a native speaker either and that you wouldn't hide behind a language barrier felt like picking directed towards me, as if you were implying I was trying to hide.

I wasn't hiding. I'm not afraid to admit my vocabulary is incomplete. I realized I made a slight mistake and used a wrong word. I then proceeded to acknowledge this mistake, and explain why I thought I made the mistake. If I was trying to hide, I might've just left without saying I was wrong to use the word I did.

Your implication, that if I were you, I was hiding behind the fact that english isn't my first language, felt like an indirect attempt to call me a coward. To be honest, it feels an awful lot like an attempted insult.

[Mystral]

This thread is turning into an excellent example how to use charisma to attack and do damage.

[Arkhios]

This thread is turning into an excellent example how to use charisma to attack and do damage.

Fair enough. However, the damage wasn't physical, and hardly lethal, so my point still stands :smallcool:

[Mordaedil]

"Yo, English isn't my first language either, but I don't just hide behind that fact whenever I lose an argument."

You pointing out that you're not a native speaker either and that you wouldn't hide behind a language barrier felt like picking directed towards me, as if you were implying I was trying to hide.

I wasn't hiding. I'm not afraid to admit my vocabulary is incomplete. I realized I made a slight mistake and used a wrong word. I then proceeded to acknowledge this mistake, and explain why I thought I made the mistake. If I was trying to hide, I might've just left without saying I was wrong to use the word I did.

Your implication, that if I were you, I was hiding behind the fact that english isn't my first language, felt like an indirect attempt to call me a coward. To be honest, it feels an awful lot like an attempted insult.

Cool, so you read into the statement more than what I said because you projected your own sentiment unto it.

Also, it is really hard to use the defense of "I used the wrong word", when you've explained what word you were using, what the meaning behind it was and how you interpret it. It wasn't a problem with the word you used, a mistake in your vocabulary, it was your entire argument was, factually, wrong. And using the excuse that English not being your first language, effectively shuts down arguments from someone who can't share your perspective, and so I step in here to offer that other perspective, that no, you goofed and it wasn't because your handling of the English language is poor, mistaken or inappropriate. In fact, I'll argue your handling of grammar, use of spelling and understanding of simile is outstanding and you shouldn't feel ashamed about your grasp of English.

Own to your mistake being a mistake. Don't blame something that it isn't. Don't sell yourself short like that.

[Psyren]

Could you guys take the language bickering somewhere else? This is a 3e/Pathfinder forum.

@OP: The Desna fighting style with the Starknife should meet your needs as it has no limitations other than using that weapon. Starknife has a lot of other support across various splats as well.