Making Charisma Great Again

[Lord Lemming]

When I started making my homebrew RPG system, I started with D&D's six standard attributes. As time went on, I simplified it by getting rid of Constitution (by merging it with Strength) and Charisma (by splitting it up between Intellect and Will (wisdom). That brought me down to four attributes. Recently though, a persuasive argument was made for Charisma being a thing that really shouldn't be lumped in with Wisdom, that it should be considered an Important Thing. I also needed a stat suitable for casting my setting's Song magic, which is explicitly supposed to work by drawing on the emotions of the singer and the audience, and Charisma works the best for that. The thing is, the other stats all do things that are useful for every character. Among other things, the other four stats do:

Strength provides more hit points, which is useful for everyone, among other things.

Agility provides more Guard points, which are an expendable pool of hit points, useful for everyone. It also improves move speed and Initiative, among other things.

Intellect provides a resource pool which is used for gaining advantage on skill checks, which is useful for everyone, among other things.

Will provides a resource pool which is used for gaining additional actions in combat, which is useful for everyone, among other things.

Charisma... provides a bonus to Diplomacy, Intimidate and Deceive. Kinda underwhelming.

I'm looking for something Charisma can do other than benefit a small group of skills which may not even be used during a course of a several-hour game session. Yeah, it boosts a specific kind of casting type, but not every character will have that casting type. So I'm looking for some unique mechanic that Charisma could be used for which is generally useful for virtually all characters... or at least more unique than just 'bonus to three skills'.

Ideas I had:

Charisma can be used in combat to increase or decrease your target priority to enemies.

Charisma can be used to provide bonuses to your allies. This is a setting where Songs have power, perhaps if the members of the party join together into a song, they gain bonuses dependent on Charisma.

Perhaps NPC interactions don't have skill checks associated with them, and a different system is in place for roleplaying encounters, where expending Charisma as a resource is helpful. Does anyone know of any existing systems I can rip off which fit the bill?

You guys have any ideas?

[arkangel111]

2 questions... and a thought

1. By getting rid of con doesn't that just incentivize someone to make like a barbarian and hyper focus strength and be super tanky and hit the hardest?

2. why can't your spells use will. Will could be you forcing others to feel the way you wish. I've felt cha is truly a waste anyway for a long time. I mean we tend to rely on the die roll, player and GM alike, regardless of how a player words his arguments. Just last week I had a player essentially try to argue that an EPIC level NPC needed to let them into a restricted area, the player pretty much just insulted the NPC while demanding entrance, and then wanted to roll for diplomacy. As the DM I told her it was gonna be ridiculously high DC because of the way she worded everything, she went fishing for that NAT 20. luckily, she failed cause I didn't have anything prepared if she got in. Most tables I have been in end up doing pretty much the same, rely on the dice to make the argument and it pushes away from the role play. besides which, tell a girl at your table what charisma is and 9/10 times they want to be the most beautiful in the world even if it does nothing for their character. If they do dump it they just say something along the lines of "I'm just not a people person".

3. perhaps if your going through the effort of getting rid of stats. Maybe Mind, Body, Soul? if a player has +5 stat in body they can describe it how they want, super muscular and super dexterous both are likely to do damage in combat if for different reasons. this leaves players the ability to flavor characters regardless of stats. I'd be more liberal (through feats and such) about offering bonuses to specific skills, thus letting their description have some impact on game rules. A strong character might get a bonus to Athletics, but a dexterous one might grab acrobatics or stealth.

Body=STR/DEX/CON
Mind=INT/WIS/CHA
Soul=Magical aptitude --- this option makes magic a separate stat entirely

or alternatively

Body=STR/DEX
Mind=INT/WIS
Soul=CHA/CON --- representing strength of character so even someone who isn't physically capable (CON) maybe just isn't willing to lie down and quit.

Using either of these I might also implement a sort of Fable-like system of Fame/infamy even if its not a stat Players ever see. thus their good or evil nature might have some impact on conversations even if the stranger has no idea who they are. I'd justify this as just a gut feeling about the person.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The first thing you should do is step back and ask yourself "what aspects of the game are important for this particular system?"

If something matters--combat, social influence, what have you-- there should be enough depth that it can be approached and represented in multiple ways; if it doesn't matter, it should be cut down as much as is physically possible. D&D, for instance, focuses on combat and physical challenges, and so it only has one broad talk-y ability (and even then, it does double-duty as a generic magic stat). On the other hand, Exalted cares a lot about social interactions, and so three of its nine abilities are dedicated to how a character interacts with others. Neither system expects mysteries and detective work to come up that often, and so they have a single "Investigation" skill. But a game like Trail of Cthulu, where mysteries and detective work are the explicit focus, has something like half a dozen different CSI skills.

Another way to think of it is that if more than one member of a party is likely to engage with a subsystem, they should be able to distinguish their characters with more than just roleplaying.


***

All that said, I think your instinct to try and find a universal in-combat use for Charisma is on the right track (assuming that you're sticking with D&D-style adventures and priorities, at least). Perhaps it can provide "Motivation points" to everyone else in the party, functioning as a sort of temporary hit points? Imposing status conditions on foes is a good option as well.

For social systems in general, I'd suggest taking a look at Exalted 3e. I mean, yes, the core rulebook is the size of the PHB, DMG, and MM put together, but the core ideas to the talky stuff are very simple.(Also I just spent way too much time writing a simplified-and-familiarized d20 version a few posts below this one, which should be much more approachable)

People have things that they care about called "Intimacies," which come in three tiers of intensity.
To persuade someone, you have to bring up one of their Intimacies. The riskier the request, the stronger that Intimacy needs to be.
You can strengthen and weaken Intimacies with social skills, but going beyond the lowest tier also requires supporting Intimacies.
You can also encourage someone to get off their ass and act on an existing Intimacy.
All of this applies to players as well as NPCs.

The net effect of this is to turn social influence into an extended conflict, with plenty of opportunities for surprises and back-and-forth action. You can absolutely still convince the king to give you his crown, but it's going to require a lot of groundwork-- first you'll have to create a Defining Intimacy of loyalty...which requires both a Major Intimacy of loyalty to strengthen, and a Major Intimacy of gratitude to support your case... which require Minor Intimacies of gratitude and loyalty, and a Minor Intimacy recognizing you as a hero of the people to support those feelings. And at every step, there are ways to stop the process, ranging from "tell the guards to get this fool out of my sight" to spending a resource to negate the results of an attempt.

It's fairly straightforward, meshes well with roleplaying ("are you making a request, trying to influence their thinking, or get them to act?" is usually pretty easy to answer), and can be easily ported to any other system.


Does anyone know of any existing systems I can rip off which fit the bill?
If I remember correctly, that's pretty much how the GUMSHOE system works.

[spectralphoenix]

Maybe you could make a system where there are several Charisma-like attributes, but they don't draw from the same point pool as your combat attributes?

In D&D, you generally have one Face character who does all the talking*, a bard or paladin or someone who gets combat bonuses from CHA somehow. Then the fighter and wizard sit in back and twiddle their thumbs in social situations, waiting for the time to go loud. I think it would be more interesting if everyone had some social skills, so they could all participate in social scenes just like everyone can participate in combat. Say the bard specializes in flattery, the fighter specializes in intimidation, the priest does moral arguments, and so forth. All these skills don't conflict with their combat skills, so nobody winds up dumping them all for more smiting power.

*A well-run game should offer social opportunities for everyone, but mechanically there's probably only one party member with good diplomacy/bluff.

[Lord Lemming]

1. By getting rid of con doesn't that just incentivize someone to make like a barbarian and hyper focus strength and be super tanky and hit the hardest?

Not as much as it would in D&D, because while Strength increases melee damage, Agility is used to increase attack accuracy.



For social systems in general, I'd suggest taking a look at Exalted 3e. I mean, yes, the core rulebook is the size of the PHB, DMG, and MM put together, but the core ideas to the talky stuff are very simple.(Also I just spent way too much time writing a simplified-and-familiarized d20 version a few posts below this one, which should be much more approachable)

People have things that they care about called "Intimacies," which come in three tiers of intensity.
To persuade someone, you have to bring up one of their Intimacies. The riskier the request, the stronger that Intimacy needs to be.
You can strengthen and weaken Intimacies with social skills, but going beyond the lowest tier also requires supporting Intimacies.
You can also encourage someone to get off their ass and act on an existing Intimacy.
All of this applies to players as well as NPCs.

The net effect of this is to turn social influence into an extended conflict, with plenty of opportunities for surprises and back-and-forth action. You can absolutely still convince the king to give you his crown, but it's going to require a lot of groundwork-- first you'll have to create a Defining Intimacy of loyalty...which requires both a Major Intimacy of loyalty to strengthen, and a Major Intimacy of gratitude to support your case... which require Minor Intimacies of gratitude and loyalty, and a Minor Intimacy recognizing you as a hero of the people to support those feelings. And at every step, there are ways to stop the process, ranging from "tell the guards to get this fool out of my sight" to spending a resource to negate the results of an attempt.

It's fairly straightforward, meshes well with roleplaying ("are you making a request, trying to influence their thinking, or get them to act?" is usually pretty easy to answer), and can be easily ported to any other system.

If I remember correctly, that's pretty much how the GUMSHOE system works.

These are helpful, thanks!


Maybe you could make a system where there are several Charisma-like attributes, but they don't draw from the same point pool as your combat attributes?

In D&D, you generally have one Face character who does all the talking*, a bard or paladin or someone who gets combat bonuses from CHA somehow. Then the fighter and wizard sit in back and twiddle their thumbs in social situations, waiting for the time to go loud. I think it would be more interesting if everyone had some social skills, so they could all participate in social scenes just like everyone can participate in combat. Say the bard specializes in flattery, the fighter specializes in intimidation, the priest does moral arguments, and so forth. All these skills don't conflict with their combat skills, so nobody winds up dumping them all for more smiting power.

*A well-run game should offer social opportunities for everyone, but mechanically there's probably only one party member with good diplomacy/bluff.

Hmmm, I'll have to think more about this. I'm starting to get a hazy idea of a way to make this work...

[Steven K]

I mean, you could do the Cha die roll first, then roleplay or describe the approach according to whatever you rolled.

1? Here's why I failed so badly
8? I reckon I sounded a bit too desperate, yeah?
15? Confident, self assured, earnest gaze, well-reasoned arguments.
20? So... DM, what did I say?

As for the pretty thing, tie actual physical good looks to Con, not Cha. And innate style or fashion sense or what have you would be Wis, surely, whereas knowing the latest trends or whatever would be Int. There you go. The only time you use Cha for being pretty would be for seduction of some kind, which is obviously based around getting your own way, which is obviously Charisma. And the normal Cha skills of Deception, Persuasion, Intimidation, and Performance, work perfectly for different seduction techniques.

[Breccia]

So, there's nothing wrong with a combat-heavy campaign. Making Charisma powerful when 90% of encounters end with looting corpses is going to be a tough sell. I don't hate the idea of some mechanic where Charisma is used to give a combat boost to your allies, it's just that some exist as class abilities and anything all-purpose will need to be weaker.

Obviously you can just have more non-hostile NPC encounters...but that doesn't sound like what you're going for. Or you wouldn't be worried about Charisma.

So, other options?

1) Charisma affects sale and purchase prices. It's an RPG classic, but numeric as you get. I mean, you could just have merchants who sell better and better wares to customers they like more, and high Charisma lets you jump the line.

2) Change the Help/Aid actions to use Charisma....Somehow.

3) Homebrew more magic items that use Charisma. Potion of Soul Purity, you heal 2d4+Cha hit points. Potion of Soul Clarity, remove disease, curs, or negative Condition per Cha bonus min 0. Yes, I said zero, Brandon, this is your fault not mine.

4) Homebrew more monsters that require Charisma saves. Design a chunk of the campaign around that. "Don't go into the Forest of Haunting Shadows! They say the darkness cast by the trees devours all those they don't respect..."

5) Create a known type of hazard/obstacle/puzzle that can be Charisma'd. Bronze statues of an ancient king that challenge people with philosophical quandries that clever speakers can phrase "the right answer" the statue is looking for. When solved, they open otherwise impassable doors or reveal treasures.

Increasing/decreasing your priority to enemies isn't a bad idea, but it'd require some kind of communication. Maybe an orc will back away from someone trying to look like a crazy grinning psychopath, but a hungry bear almost certainly wouldn't and a black pudding doesn't even have eyes.

You can't force Charisma to be useful in every single situation. Nobody's going to successfully bluff a rock.

[pyrefiend]

One option would be to introduce some sort of stress/morale system (a la Darkest Dungeon (https://darkestdungeon.fandom.com/wiki/Stress)) and tie Charisma to that. That sort of system is more often associated with dark fantasy than high/heroic fantasy, but it doesn't have to be.

Basically, players and NPCs have morale points, which function similarly to a second pool of hit points. If your morale hits zero, you're not killed, but you're hit with some sort of very heavy debuff (maybe one that harms your allies, as well.) Being physically tough doesn't give you any more morale points, so even the very tough Barbarian might be at risk of being demoralized.

Various existing in-game effects have effects on morale/stress. For example, Aid Another might increase your ally's morale. Taking a long rest might increase everyone's morale. Getting a Critical Hit might increase your (and your allies?) morale, while decreasing your opponents' morale. The more Charisma you have, the more dramatic the effects. (E.g., when you strike a Critical Hit, each ally in sight gains morale equal to your charisma bonus, and each enemy within sight loses morale equal to your charisma bonus.)

[Rilmani]

The system I’m working on combines Dexterity and Charisma into Grace, which includes ranged weapon attacks, stealth, acrobatics, and so-on. I figure some social competence can go into Grace while others (like Intimidation) will go into more fitting ability scores. In terms of class features and miscellaneous effects, I figure some Paladin auras and reflavored monk passive effects would fit right at home with a Grace stat.

The problem with using Grace in a d20 system though is it feels a little bit like Constitution- you might not feel the connection between “grace” and applying significant magical power. It fits for skill checks, agile weapons, and a lot of defensive or passive options, but it feels weird replacing charisma-based attacks. Not a huge deal, but I think it is worth bringing up.

[Maat Mons]

I've never understood the impulse to have different types of magic use different ability scores. Why not just have a single "Magic" stat? Then you wouldn't need to add a new ability score into your system each time you wanted to create a new spellcasting class.

Currently, some of your stats have a dual offensive and defensive nature. Strength is used to smash things hard, and withstand being smashed hard. Dexterity is used to hit things that don't want to be hit, and avoid being hit by things that want to hit you. In both cases, only the defensive portion is universally valuable. The offensive portions are applicable only to those that make use of certain attack forms. So to could it be with the Magic stat. It could tell you not just how powerful your magic attacks are, but also how well you withstand magic attacks.

One thing to remember is that, as you have things set up, melee combatants need to ability scores to be effective. They use Dexterity to hit, and Strength to deal damage. In order to keep things fair, you might want to make it so your magic users also need two ability scores. You could maybe double-up on Dexterity, make all spells require a roll for accurate targeting.

Or, I guess that could be the tradeoff with the Magic stat. As a mage, it's all you need, but then it doesn't have a dual offensive-defensive nature. You can reserve all your points for Magic, unlike meleers, who need to split their points between Strength and Dexterity, but also unlike them your stat isn't giving you any defensive benefits.

I'd only have a dedicated Social stat if your game leans heavily into that aspect. By giving Social status as an ability score, you're putting it on the same level as Strength. Strength governs you hit points, which is a huge deal for everyone. And it governs your melee damage, which is a huge deal for many. Can you see social interaction as being such a major part of your system that people look between Strength and Social, and have difficulty deciding which is the better pick?

I guess you could take a page from D&D, and arbitrarily make some classes require a minimum score in Social to be able to use their spells. But that invites questions like "Why does being descended from a Gold Dragon make me a really good liar?" and "Why does being pretty make me a better mage?"

[Breccia]

One option would be to introduce some sort of stress/morale system and tie Charisma to that.

While I think Wisdom/willpower is what an individual would use to resist poor morale in themselves, Charisma is how you'd help resist low morale in others. And let's face it, a D&D game is a party game, you're outnumbered by your allies. Having multiple people in your party with good Cha would make it less suicide, in this system, to make Wis your dump stat.

[Breccia]

"Why does being pretty make me a better mage?"

I'll briefly comment on this: it doesn't. Or, it shouldn't. I've played several games, including older D&D editions, where physical attractiveness was a separate checkbox/stat. Some of the world's most famous leaders were not particularly physically attractive.

I am aware of the common "shorthand" that higher Charisma means higher Comeliness, but I don't follow that myself.

Now I will say, while I could pretty easily explain why Int for Wizards, Wis for Clerics, etc, I would get to "Cha for Sorcerers" and pause. I totally get your point on that one. But to me, it's the exception and not the rule.

[Maat Mons]

If we're stuck with the D&D ability score system, I'd say it makes much more sense for Clerics to be Charisma-based than Wisdom-based. Charisma is supposed to be "force of personality," which seems like it should be tied to strength of conviction, which is explicitly what Clerics get their power from.

Sorcerers should be Intelligence-based. They use the same arcane arts as Wizards. The fact that they have a natural affinity for those arts doesn't change anything about the fundamentals of how the magic works or what is necessary to invoke it. Arcane magic is arcane, that is, difficult to comprehend. So it takes smarts. That's the theme they went with when they developed and named it, so they shouldn't abandon that theme for the Sorcerer class.

Of course, the fact that there are so many fiddly details involved in differentiating the mental ability scores in D&D is a big tip-off that they were badly chosen. And the fact that each way of interacting with magic is indicated with a particular ability score means you can only have as many distinct ways of interacting with magic as you have ability scores. This is a major limitation in designing new classes. You can't break the mold, or you wind up with no fitting ability score for the class to use. Or you double up with an existing but different style of caster, and undermine the entire idea of differentiating caster types by ability score.



On the subject of making Appearance its own ability score, that runs into a problem when trying to balance ability scores. They should all, theoretically, be similarly valuable. But Appearance is just one facet of social interaction, and social interaction is a relatively minor part of many D&D games. This means Appearance would tend to be a very niche ability, which would have trouble competing with prominent combat ability scores for character-building resources.

[Breccia]

On the subject of making Appearance its own ability score, that runs into a problem when trying to balance ability scores.

In the games I've seen it used, it's either
(a) an on/off checkbox and not a stat, or
(b) a secondary stat worth fewer points

It would not be part of the standard array.

[Yakk]

Charisma determines how much of the world can become loyal to you.

A point of charisma might let you have a squad of soldiers loyal to you, a spy at the king's court, a blacksmith who makes you high quality weapons, etc.

It could easily be ridiculously over-powered.