Circlet of Persuasion

[RexDart]

The Circlet of Persuasion grants a "+3 competence bonus on the wearer’s Charisma-based checks."

Seems simple enough, but searching for exactly what counts as a "Charisma-based check" gave me more confusion than it did clarity.

Can anyone spell out, simply, would the Circlet give a +3 bonus to the following?
1. Turn Check rolls
2. Turn Damage rolls
3. CHA skills (Diplomacy, Gather Information, etc.)
4. anything else of note?

For what it's worth, my personal interest is playing a pretty bog-standard but high-CHA Cleric who wants to be really good at actually turning undead (or more specifically destroying them, as she has Disciple of the Sun), and wouldn't mind being a little better at talking to people. Not all that interested in what Bards, Sorcerers, Paladins, etc., might do, or weird edge cases.

[Kurald Galain]

Basically, it adds to any d20 that is based on charisma and is not an attack roll or a saving throw.

That includes turning, cha-based skills, concentration (if Pathfinder), and plain old ability checks. There's a couple of ways to key initiative off charisma, in which case it applies there too.

[Darg]

In simple terms: if you add your charisma modifier it is a charisma based check.

[Biggus]

Basically, it adds to any d20 that is based on charisma and is not an attack roll or a saving throw.

That includes turning, cha-based skills, concentration (if Pathfinder), and plain old ability checks. There's a couple of ways to key initiative off charisma, in which case it applies there too.


In simple terms: if you add your charisma modifier it is a charisma based check.

I don't think this is quite right. I don't think damage counts as a check (there are ways to add your Cha to damage), so I don't think turning damage counts either. Initiative is described as a check in one of the official books, and all the other examples have "check" in their name, but I've never heard damage referred to as a check anywhere.

[Crake]

I don't think this is quite right. I don't think damage counts as a check (there are ways to add your Cha to damage), so I don't think turning damage counts either. Initiative is described as a check in one of the official books, and all the other examples have "check" in their name, but I've never heard damage referred to as a check anywhere.

Correct, all checks are rolls, but not all rolls are checks. Skills are modified ability checks, and turning checks are charisma based, so they would both recieve the bonus, but attacks, saves and damage rolls are not considered checks, and thus would not recieve any benefit.

In short:
1) Yes
2) No
3) Yes

[Kurald Galain]

I don't think damage counts as a check

I agree. That's why I did NOT write "any die roll" but "any 1d20 roll". :smalltongue:

[Gruftzwerg]

a "check" in 3.5 is mechanically represented by a DC, Difficulty Check.

Thus, any Difficulty Check that involves CHA.

RAW: And imho this seems to include checks where CHA would either increase the effect's DC or the check roll. Remind you that "CHA-based check" ain't defined, which would imho include both above mentioned cases.

RAI may differ..

[Aquillion]

I agree. That's why I did NOT write "any die roll" but "any 1d20 roll". :smalltongue:I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm *pretty* sure that with all the source books out there for 3.5e, there's probably some way to roll a d20s for damage. :smalltongue:

[MaxiDuRaritry]

I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm *pretty* sure that with all the source books out there for 3.5e, there's probably some way to roll a d20s for damage. :smalltongue:The ToB maneuvers that allow a Concentration check for damage. Add Cha to that somehow, and...

[Troacctid]

Here's the glossary definition of a check.

A method of determining the result when a character attempts an action (other than an attack or a saving throw) that has a chance of failure. Checks are based on a relevant character ability, skill, or other characteristic. Most checks are either ability checks or skill checks, though special types such as turning checks, caster level checks, dispel checks, and initiative checks also exist. The specific name of the check usually corresponds to the skill or ability used. To make a check, roll 1d20 and add any relevant modifiers. (Higher results are always better.) If this check result equals or exceeds the Difficulty Class number assigned by the DM (or the opponent's check, if the action is opposed), the check succeeds.

[Kurald Galain]

The ToB maneuvers that allow a Concentration check for damage. Add Cha to that somehow, and...

But that's ok, because concentration is a check and therefore benefits from the circlet (assuming you can base it on cha somehow).

[Biggus]

I agree. That's why I did NOT write "any die roll" but "any 1d20 roll". :smalltongue:

Fair enough, I'll admit I didn't properly take that in. However, you didn't write 1d20 but just d20, and...


I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm *pretty* sure that with all the source books out there for 3.5e, there's probably some way to roll a d20s for damage. :smalltongue:

...Epic Spellcasting can increase damage dice to d20s. :smalltongue:

[ericgrau]

I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm *pretty* sure that with all the source books out there for 3.5e, there's probably some way to roll a d20s for damage. :smalltongue:
Quite possibly, but it would take a sloppy writer who doesn't follow convention or something based on a check or etc. Normally damage scaling stops at d12s and then goes into multiple d6 and d8 dice instead.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Quite possibly, but it would take a sloppy writer who doesn't follow convention or something based on a check or etc. Normally damage scaling stops at d12s and then goes into multiple d6 and d8 dice instead.I did mention one way to do so...

[Crake]

There IS an official defintion for a check in the glossary:

Check

A method of determining the result when a character attempts an action (other than an attack or a saving throw) that has a chance of failure. Checks are based on a relevant character ability, skill, or other characteristic. Most checks are either ability checks or skill checks, though special types such as turning checks, caster level checks, dispel checks, and initiative checks also exist. The specific name of the check usually corresponds to the skill or ability used. To make a check, roll 1d20 and add any relevant modifiers. (Higher results are always better.) If this check result equals or exceeds the Difficulty Class number assigned by the DM (or the opponent's check, if the action is opposed), the check succeeds.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

There IS an official defintion for a check in the glossary:

Check

A method of determining the result when a character attempts an action (other than an attack or a saving throw) that has a chance of failure. Checks are based on a relevant character ability, skill, or other characteristic. Most checks are either ability checks or skill checks, though special types such as turning checks, caster level checks, dispel checks, and initiative checks also exist. The specific name of the check usually corresponds to the skill or ability used. To make a check, roll 1d20 and add any relevant modifiers. (Higher results are always better.) If this check result equals or exceeds the Difficulty Class number assigned by the DM (or the opponent's check, if the action is opposed), the check succeeds.That definition is a bit dysfunctional, however, since there are times where a skill check is still referred to as a check but cannot fail, such as (as above mentioned) using a Concentration check for damage. You don't have a DC or failure chance for it, but it's still referred to as a check.

[Remuko]

I'm too lazy to look it up but I'm *pretty* sure that with all the source books out there for 3.5e, there's probably some way to roll a d20s for damage. :smalltongue:

iirc in 3.0 monks unarmed damage capped at 1d20 instead of 2d10

[Crake]

That definition is a bit dysfunctional, however, since there are times where a skill check is still referred to as a check but cannot fail, such as (as above mentioned) using a Concentration check for damage. You don't have a DC or failure chance for it, but it's still referred to as a check.

Thats the general rule, using the result of the check for damage is the specific rule, I dont see the disfunction

[Darg]

That definition is a bit dysfunctional, however, since there are times where a skill check is still referred to as a check but cannot fail, such as (as above mentioned) using a Concentration check for damage. You don't have a DC or failure chance for it, but it's still referred to as a check.

The minimum damage rule only applies to penalties. As insightful strike copies the result of the check, there is no penalty reducing the damage if the result is 0 or lower. Meaning the ability can fail to do damage if someone decides to use it with a negative modifier.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Thats the general rule, using the result of the check for damage is the specific rule, I dont see the disfunctionBut there are other times when you don't hit a DC (even one set by an opposing check), such as when you have a range of outcomes all the way up as high as you're capable of rolling. You can't fail the DC check because there is no DC and no chance of failure. Just a gradient from low to high. By the definition stated above, that would not be an ability-based check and would not be affected by the circlet of persuasion or anything else that affects such checks.

[Troacctid]

But there are other times when you don't hit a DC (even one set by an opposing check), such as when you have a range of outcomes all the way up as high as you're capable of rolling. You can't fail the DC check because there is no DC and no chance of failure. Just a gradient from low to high. By the definition stated above, that would not be an ability-based check and would not be affected by the circlet of persuasion or anything else that affects such checks.
It says right in the glossary that turning checks and initiative checks count, so I don't think this holds a lot of water.

[Crake]

But there are other times when you don't hit a DC (even one set by an opposing check), such as when you have a range of outcomes all the way up as high as you're capable of rolling. You can't fail the DC check because there is no DC and no chance of failure. Just a gradient from low to high. By the definition stated above, that would not be an ability-based check and would not be affected by the circlet of persuasion or anything else that affects such checks.

Again, these are explicitly called out exceptions to the general rule? Not a disfunction as far as I can see. Turning checks literally fall under this category, but they are still called turning checks

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The definition is dysfunctional if a significant number of "checks" don't fit as the word is defined.

[Crake]

The definition is dysfunctional if a significant number of "checks" don't fit as the word is defined.

No its not? This game is an exception based system, something is dysfunctional when it produces unexpected and unintended outcomes. The definition of check having lots of exceptions does not produce said outcome.

[MornShine]

Turning check, not turning damage, yup. There are other options for that.

Circlet of Persuasion also will help one break out of a Planar Binding (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/planarBindingLesser.htm) spell.

[Gruftzwerg]

No its not? This game is an exception based system, something is dysfunctional when it produces unexpected and unintended outcomes. The definition of check having lots of exceptions does not produce said outcome.

Fully agree. (Except maybe that I like to call 3.5 permission and exception based)

We have enough other examples of this. Just think about attacking and how many exceptions exists for attacking. There are hundreds of abilities and effect that create an exception to regular attacking.

[Chronos]

Quoth Gruftzwerg:

a "check" in 3.5 is mechanically represented by a DC, Difficulty Check.
Or an opposed check.

Quoth Kurald Galain:

There's a couple of ways to key initiative off charisma, in which case it applies there too.
There are ways to add a Cha bonus to initiative, but I don't know of any ways to make it Cha-based. Any given check is only based on one ability score, but there might be ways to give it bonuses based on other scores.

For instance, a 3rd-level factotum adds his Int bonus to all strength and dexterity based checks, but those checks are still strength or dexterity-based, not int-based. A factotum with a marshal ally won't hide better due to Motivate Intelligence.

Though there are still ways to change what ability a check is based on, such as undead using Cha instead of Con for concentration.

[loky1109]

a "check" in 3.5 is mechanically represented by a DC, Difficulty Check.

DC is Difficulty Class, not Check.