# Can charisma be something more than just dump stat?



## Liquidlizard (Apr 29, 2009)

I'm gathering opinions on ideas how to improve charisma stat in custom made RPG systems.

I'm toying around with creating new RPG systems (I'm one of those people who has to "do-it-yourself") and I've realized one thing. If I include Charisma as basic stat it will always end up becoming a dump stat. Just like this (I'm sure you must have experience something like this in your GMing career)

In a way it is understandable. If you make Charisma a stat that is linked with magic (I'm speaking here about generic fantasy setting), and it's a prerequisite for certain magic schools, then it will be popular, but then, to my mind it's no more charisma, but just some magic prerequisite stat that has its name. 

I want it to be just like it is - not something that is connected with magic. Unfortunately it leaves charisma to be only a social skill, which is fine, if you're campaign has enough social encounters or depends on how you heroes deal with situations in which you can't just brawl. On the other hand we know that fantasy, adventure games, inevitably means danger and enemies and monsters, thus people often still favour the "more practical skills". 

I was wondering how to give more weight to this stat, so that people do not automatically lower it in order to max other skills, but they have to think about it, even in not so social games. 

I would like to hear your ideas. I have two of mine here as well:

1) Bard which is an overall great both combat and social booster and support character benefits from charisma. But only specialised bards will take it (unlike strength or agility, which is luring for everyone)

2) A friend of mine thought that charisma could determine the social rank of the character before the game. Meaning higher charisma gives a larger chance to be someone rich and important, which could translate is such simple bonuses as larger sum of the money at the beginning or maybe certain support money that the character receives every week. Thus being an adventurer with high charisma might be more inviting even for powerplayers.

These are just some ideas, I gladly would like to hear yours on this matter.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 29, 2009)

Social rank would not work too well, because it is mostly used in social interactions, and limited starting money will level out over time...

In D&D Charisma reflects your personality and confidence...

In 3.5, it reflects how easy you can be charmed or controlled (after your will-save failed)

Actually you could use it for mundane combat too:

How easy are you intimidated or impressed by your opponents behavior, how easy can you intimidate or bluff him. Also you could tie it to initiative in some way...

This will make those who like to be in combat consider twice if its worth dumping it:
Having the highest strength is worthless if you run away all the time^^


----------



## Janx (Apr 29, 2009)

It's a good question.

Part of the problem with Charisma, barring game rules that force using it, is that for the basic premise of the game, killing monsters and taking their stuff, speaking well and looking good aren't too useful towards that goal.  Whereas strength, Dex, Con, Int, Wisdom all have in combat uses, especially strength, Dex and Con.  Since you expect to spend more time in combat (or can solve most problems by setting it on fire or hitting it repeatedly), Charisma gets ignored.

The other part of the problem, is that Charisma is the "role-playing" stat.  My real world strength, dex and con have no bearing on my PC (who could be better than I am).  But my own natural charm and way with words CAN influence the GM when I speak.  My PC doesn't need a high charisma stat when I am charismatic.

If you look at old-school gaming, even Intelligence gets treated this way.  Sure, it affects how many spells you can know, but other than that, if the player is dumb, the PC dies.  If the player is smart, the PC survives.

The result is, a branch in game design thinking.  Is the PC an avatar of the player, and the only rules you need are for simulating things the Player can't do?  Such as fighting, casting spells.

Or do the rules model the PC, and the PC can only do what he has in-game skills for, regardless of the player?  When 3e added more social skills and classes that used Charisma, they headed toward this interpretation.

I would argue, however, that since a real player is controlling the PC, the player's intelligence and charisma is always influencing the game in real ways.  An intelligent player with a tactical mind will do smarter things in combat, even with "just a fighter".  A persuasive player will sway the GM to side with him in rules disputes, and NPC interactions.  

What all this boils down to is you've got to either eliminate the Charisma stat (an extreme choice) and strictly rely on the player's portrayal of their character (some folks would enjoy this).  Or take an approach that incorporates their real skill, and their game stat.

I've seen this proposed before, it's good advice:
In any social skill situation, If the player does a good job with actual persuasion/speaking, give them a bonus to their skill check as a situational modifer.  It may be easier to lower the DC and not tell anybody.  A player who just does the skill check, gets no bonus.  A player with no tact who tries to role-play it out, and just comes off as insulting is the tricky part.  Realistically, you should apply a penalty, and the player should learn that they need to take communication classes.  However, it may be nicest, to simply ignore what they said, and make the skill check, with no bonus or penalty.

Once you've figured out how your going to handle social skills, you've got to make them happen more often.  If you don't make socializing important in the game, then the stat is useless.  This doesn't need new game rules, just a shift in the kinds of encounters and adventures you have.

If you stick to mostly dungeon crawls, the party won't need socials skills.  If you make most of the game about social skills, with a fight for the climax, you'll get a lot more use of those skills.

My advice then, is to run a city campaign, where most of the NPCs the PCs need to work with are in public view.  It'll be harder to solve with violence when nobody draws a weapon (except for the bad guy at the climax).

From there, getting from encounter to encounter should be a matter of trying to get information or persuade/bluff/bully NPCs.  This will require a shift in thinking.  Normally, to spice things up and make things challenging, the GM has the villain send in thugs to rough up the party.  Instead, you've got to send problems of a social nature.  Spread lies, slander, buy things out from under the party.  It'll be tough, but once you get the pattern down, it'll work.

The trick is setting up encounters that are obviously solvable with non-combat, and that would make more problems if combat is used.  It's very easy to make a combat encounter.  Send NPCs at the party with weapons drawn and tell them to roll initiative.  The trick then, is to make bad guys who seldom use weapons.  They send lawyers and spies, and buy/bribe their way.

Once you do that, you'll have more social encounters, which will make Charisma more useful.  It'll also mean you won't waste time on tons of combat encounters, which means the PCs will be at full health for the climax, which means you can make it tougher and more epic.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Apr 29, 2009)

If you are designing your own game, who says you have to have a charisma stat? 

If the game you are designing has no importance for such a stat and you feel that giving it meaning to other game elements in order to justify its inclusion is wrong then leave it out. 

Charisma was actually important in the original D&D game. It determined how many henchmen you could have, and thier loyalty/morale level. As the importance of henchmen declined through the editions, so did the value of charisma. 

Unless there is an overwhelming in game use for charisma then leave it out.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Apr 29, 2009)

In one set of d20 house rules, I had each save influenced by 2 ability modifiers, instead of the standard 1. Rounding up, if a particular one was higher, down if the other was. There are variuos other ways you can make Charisma represent more than it does in say, 3e, as well.

Or, unless you just get rid of that type of ability altogether, as suggested upthread, you might also consider going the way of - for example - Unisystem, which has the same abilities, except that Charisma and Wisdom are replaced by Willpower and Perception, respectively. From there, it's a lot easier, and just clearer, making it all happen for [what was] Charisma

Another possibility is to weave skills and magic (and even combat, perhaps) together, for example by requiring an appropriate 'social' skill roll to cast a spell that affects people in such ways.

Or hey, use it for morale and suchlike. It can certainly be interpreted as covering confidence, so that could be exploited in a variety of ways (like morale). Or, indeed, action points / luck / destiny type stuff - basically, the character's 'aura' / 'mojo' / whatever.

But yeah, you don't even need to stick to six stats. You could go for fewer, more, or none at all, like the 'A Song of Ice and Fire' RPG, which ranks what might normally be called 'stats' or 'skills' as exactly the same thing: skills, IIRC.

There are a lot of different approaches. You could always check out the many free RPGs out there, as well as the 'quick start' versions of non-free systems that are frequently to be found at the creators' website.


----------



## Krensky (Apr 29, 2009)

Charisma is a dump stat because GMs allow it to be a dump stat. Part of this is by not using it (or social skills) part of this is that it either effects fewer things or the things it effects become less relevant over time.

Some OGL systems have resolved this in different ways, usually by playing off the Charisma is force of personality and likability concept. The best way to make CHA actually matter in a game is to actually make people roll their social skills. A number of people here detest (or some less extreme verb) this concept, but if you want CHA to mechanically matter, this is the first step.

If you have a copy, look at Charisma in Spycraft 2.0. It effects a number of skills, it's one of the casting stats (although not in the way it is in 3.5), it effects your finances and equipment access, and theres a crap load of things a high CHA person can do to abuse a person who just dumped it, and a lot of feats, tricks, and class abilities to exploit a high Charisma in combat. Frankly, a Charisma based Martial Artist can be scary as hell.


----------



## Fanaelialae (Apr 29, 2009)

Something that I toyed with, back when I was running 3.5, was associating Charisma with "luck".  The basis was that charismatic people tend to be confident, and confident people make their own luck (in other words you are far more likely to succeed at something if you have confidence in yourself).

I tried different ideas:  

Things normally determined by a random die roll were instead determined by opposed Charisma checks (a modified random chance instead of an equally random chance).  Good things happened to the guy with the highest roll whereas bad luck was drawn to the one with the lowest roll.

I forget exactly how it worked, but I also tried a Luck point system.  I think it was a pool of 5 + Charisma modifier Luck, and you could spend Luck to modify a roll by +1 for each point spent.  Luck refreshed each game session.


----------



## Henrix (Apr 29, 2009)

I overcame the dump stat thing (in 3e) by forcing my players to make charisma checks in about every social interaction.

As soon as they wanted something out of somebody, or wanted to buy/sell something extraordinary - a charisma check. (Often I allowed a Diplomacy check instead, if I deemed it suitable.)

By really showing that a lower charisma meant that people liked you less I got my players to stop dumping charisma.


Charisma is often a dump stat because people think that the 'roleplaying' should decide how a conversation turns, and not the stats.
I say that as long as combat isn't figured in the same way, neither should social interactions.

The characters' stats should matter. (Or else play a game where there are no such stats.)


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 29, 2009)

In RCFG, Charisma is tied to:

*  Willpower save (Wisdom is tied to Perception save)
*  Max number of henchmen
*  Skills such as diplomacy

The first, more than anything, helps prevent Charisma from being a dump stat, as Willpower is a fairly common save.  The justification is that Charisma ties directly to force of personality and sense of self.


RC


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 29, 2009)

Have charisma include luck or fate as a component, in addition to personal magnetism. (After all, feeling lucky or blessed tends to have a positive connection to being confident.) Have action points or story points or plot coupons be keyed to that stat. You can also use it to reflect those situations where it's truly random who gets attacked (such as an ooze faced with two opponents equally distant.) Alternatively, you could make it give you a number of contacts and their helpfulness for you. 

The +2/-2 circumstance bonus for good or bad RP by the player is a good compromise position when it comes to the issue raised above. It makes player skill important, but not too important.


----------



## malraux (Apr 29, 2009)

I've always liked the BRP/Cthulhu/Chaosium answer to this.  Charisma as such is divided into two stats.  The first is appearance; the second is Power, as in will power.  In that sort of system, your success at influencing people, either magically or mundanely, is tied to Pow.  In addition, your natural luckiness is also a function of your power.  Charismatic characters end up being luckier.


----------



## Akaiku (Apr 29, 2009)

Henrix said:


> Charisma is often a dump stat because people think that the 'roleplaying' should decide how a conversation turns, and not the stats.
> I say that as long as combat isn't figured in the same way, neither should social interactions.
> 
> The characters' stats should matter. (Or else play a game where there are no such stats.)




2 problems here. One, you can't usually ask the gm to make up a plan because you OOC are terrible at it but you IC have 30 int. So what happens is that someone who has the roleplaying to back up stats wins but someone who has the stats and no roleplaying doesn't.

Second, how many people do you need to be a diplomat? The answer is usually one of the pc's. If one pc does the social interaction and is good at it casue they are the social spec pc, why exactly should any other character bother? Str is a dump stat for most 3.5 casters, after all. If your job is to kill things and take their stuff, why exactly does how commanding your presence is matter?

Or, alternativly, you can make charasma how pretty you are and plenty of people will take it JUST for that. Extend it to cool and more will take it. Emphasize that people without high charasma will NEVER be recognized as cool or pretty by anyone regardless of merit.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 29, 2009)

In the original D&D game, Charisma was perhaps the second most important score (after Hit Points). Besides providing modifiers to NPC reactions, it limited the number of "henchmen" one could have and affected their morale and loyalty. As henchmen could gain experience levels, they were quite valuable assets if carefully cultivated.

If memory serves, that held true (by the books) in every TSR edition. Players did themselves (and DMs did Charisma) a disservice by neglecting that aspect of the game. If it was dropped from the rules in 3E, then the new designers can take some blame for making Charisma a "dump stat".

In Traveller, Social Standing sometimes serves a Charisma-like function. However, "dumping" is not relevant when scores are randomly generated rather than assigned by the player. There is also the twist that a low score might in some circumstances (to which adventurers are prone) be more advantageous than being an aristocrat. (Those do not include getting a commission in the Navy, though!)

In RuneQuest (old editions, anyhow), Charisma not only has a leadership component (less defined than in D&D) but is useful in such important matters as obtaining training. An interesting note is that the score can rise and fall depending on the success or failure of ventures.

That general idea seems to me quite good. As an indication of prestige, Charisma can have great appeal for players. Just knowing that his other stats make a character Hal the Hero -- for all that to the public he's a "zero" -- may not be as "cool" as getting acknowledgment, respect, deference, or even adulation.

Charisma could have additional value if it governs not only influencing others but also _resisting_ persuasion. That goes, though, against the general rule that players have free rein to choose their characters' responses.

I think the bottom line is that it really depends on how important interpersonal relationships are in the game. If the player-characters are all loners and social outcasts, then it might be as well to "dump" the rating from the game altogether.


----------



## Janx (Apr 29, 2009)

Henrix said:


> I overcame the dump stat thing (in 3e) by forcing my players to make charisma checks in about every social interaction.
> 
> As soon as they wanted something out of somebody, or wanted to buy/sell something extraordinary - a charisma check. (Often I allowed a Diplomacy check instead, if I deemed it suitable.)
> 
> By really showing that a lower charisma meant that people liked you less I got my players to stop dumping charisma.




You're not wrong here. Basically make more checks that use charisma, and the stat will matter.



Henrix said:


> Charisma is often a dump stat because people think that the 'roleplaying' should decide how a conversation turns, and not the stats.
> I say that as long as combat isn't figured in the same way, neither should social interactions.





Here I disagree.  A smart tactics player will do better in combat (with the same game stats) then a stupid player.  Their real world skill affects the game, not by numbers, but by how the maneuver and avoid doing stupid things.

Real world persuasiveness is the same thing, except for social interactions, instead of combat interactions.  It manipulates the game, beyond the numbers.  It's just the way things work.


----------



## Janx (Apr 29, 2009)

Ariosto said:


> In the original D&D game, Charisma was perhaps the second most important score (after Hit Points). Besides providing modifiers to NPC reactions, it limited the number of "henchmen" one could have and affected their morale and loyalty. As henchmen could gain experience levels, they were quite valuable assets if carefully cultivated.




Charisma has been a dump stat for as long as D&D existed.  It was a dump stat, because if you rolled a low number, you could stick it in Charisma and at least be decent in your chosen class.  Only an idiot would roll a 4 for a stat, and stick it in Dex, just so he could get a 15 charisma for a fighter.  A charming fighter who got hit a lot isn't one that's going to reach 10th level to get henchmen.


Ultimately, nobody wants low scores, but if you roll one, sticking it in Charisma had the least impact on your PC.  That's why it's a dump stat.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 29, 2009)

In the original game, there was no "dumping" for the same reason as in Traveller. Even with the importance later given to other scores, and even with free distribution, I would give a fighter's charisma priority over intelligence or wisdom. Why one would wait until 10th level to recruit henchmen is beyond me.


----------



## Clavis (Apr 29, 2009)

In early D&D, Charisma was not a "dump stat" because there where no "dump stats"; abilities were rolled in order and you played what your scores indicated. The game didn't demand that all characters have super-human abilities in every category.

Charisma is a vital ability for low-level characters in old-school D&D, because it governs monster reactions and the ability to control henchmen. Low Level characters in older editions survive by not trying to fight everything, and by hiring retainers to help them in combat. As has been said before, D&D was not originally so much about killing things and taking their stuff, as about exploring the unknown and bringing home treasure. Monsters were simply obstacles to getting treasure, as shown by the fact that PCs received far more XP from bringing home treasure than they did from killing monsters. Talking your way out of difficult situations was usually a far better tactic than trying to kill everything.


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 29, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> 2 problems here. One, you can't usually ask the gm to make up a plan because you OOC are terrible at it but you IC have 30 int. So what happens is that someone who has the roleplaying to back up stats wins but someone who has the stats and no roleplaying doesn't.




You can ask him for hints, though, at the very least. I don't see why that wouldn't be the case. 

That said, I've rarely seen players who are really uninterested in clever planning pick the high Int characters — for them, mental skills tend to be a dump stat so that they aren't forced to labor over the plans. Similarly, players who tend to be interested in social interactions above and beyond "The entire party needs to talk NPC X into Activity Y" don't shaft Charisma. 



> Second, how many people do you need to be a diplomat? The answer is usually one of the pc's. If one pc does the social interaction and is good at it casue they are the social spec pc, why exactly should any other character bother? Str is a dump stat for most 3.5 casters, after all. If your job is to kill things and take their stuff, why exactly does how commanding your presence is matter?




Man, that depends on the game so much and so hard. I can off the top of my head think of all kinds of situations where one person being the party diplomat isn't going to always help. What if the wizard needs to make a good impression on the local Elementalist College and the other wizards aren't going to let the bard make his case for him? What if the military insists on asking the party warriors for their opinion instead of the charmer? And if there are five party members and five incredibly hot singles hanging out in the bar, the party diplomat might not mind going off for a sixsome all the time if it's easier for him to do that than to try and talk a lady into giving Gruntax the Noisome some pity-loving.

I see some players make Charisma a dump stat now and again, but the way I encourage people to consider Charisma isn't mechanical: I just provide NPCs that are more interested in particular characters than the entire party. Potential mentors, lovers, allies, contacts, etc. — if there's a lone gnoll in the party, for instance, then I'm going to want to drop in at least one or two gnollish NPCs who would have story hooks, potential training, camaraderie or other useful things that they'd be wililng to share with another gnoll. Clerics and paladins have other members of their faith. Fighters might have mercenary or military contacts. Thieves' guilds. Fire-cults. All kinds of ideas. The party diplomat can get stuff for the party, but you get a little extra out of the world if you are willing to speak up for yourself.

If players genuinely aren't that interested in interaction with personal contacts, no worries. Generally they are, though, because that's what my groups tend to get out of gaming. A well-realized NPC with some neat things to offer goes a lot farther, in my experience, than any hard-and-fast mechanic to encourage players to interact with the world.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Apr 29, 2009)

Someone upthread mentioned the basic problem with Charisma ... the player's actual charisma will, during game play, almost always mean more than the character's Charisma.

This is also true of Intelligence and Wisdom, but the effect there is mitigated. A high-Intelligence or high-Wisdom character benefits from the "committee effect," which allows the player(s) to more closely emulate the character's score.  The slow pace of game-turns when compared to game-time also helps.  Going the other way, I've found that DMs -- including me -- are more apt to notice and shut down someone overplaying his or her character's low Intelligence or Wisdom scores.

I try -- but it is difficult, and I fail at it a lot -- to make NPCs react appropriately -- or even exaggeratedly -- to a character with a notable Charisma.  If I could improve at that (a lot), that would help, as long as I make it very well known that it's going to occur in the game.  (No surprises for players used to relying on their own charisma, rather than their character's.)

In game mechanics -- 3.5 -- I have a point-buy system that gives Charisma a break.  (In short, 156 points; Strength, Dexterity, and Intelligence cost 2.25 per increment; Constitution and Wisdom cost 2; Charisma costs 1.75.)

You could also try doubling -- maybe even tripling -- any Charisma penalty to skills, but that seems like it would have quite a few unforeseen implications.


----------



## Jack7 (Apr 29, 2009)

LL, I like a lot of these ideas. The ones offered so far.

In my setting Charisma is fundamental to Clerical characters. For sentence Charisma helps to determine how powerful the Charis, which are similar to the Charisms in the Medieval Player's Handbook. Similar, but not the same. For instance Charisma helps determine how influential a Cleric will be when trying to influence others, either emotionally, or reasonably (in debate) or how effective their homilies or preachings or speeches will be in influencing others. Charisma also helps clerics when practicing Thaumaturgy (miracle working) and Paladins when executing their powers, like _Lay on Hands_. In other words Charisma helps to solidify and amplify Faith based acts and initiatives. Anytime one party or individual has to have "faith" in what someone else is doing then charisma helps to amplify this *"I have faith in you"* proposition. Prayers become more effective, miracles more pronounced and obvious, effects more outstanding.

Likewise, although we don't use Charisma as Willpower, Charisma can amplify Willpower because it can help increase self-confidence in the character in the same way it can create faith in another.

In the clerical sense and in the faith sense then this is much more like the Koine (Greek) usage of the term. Charisma being a psychological or soul attribute of the character, rather than merely a social or behavioral one.

Charisma is also fundamental to Bards and to Agents and Scouts (Rogues) because of their jobs, for much the same reasons. Bards depend upon moving and convincing others, Agents and Scouts must instill faith in their proposals and work, and so charisma is considered a "type of genius" in these circumstances. Certain individuals and characters have the "genius of being charismatic" which goes far beyond being popular or social and into the realm of "deeply influential." Charisma can be used to win converts to your cause and to gain allies to asset you with your objectives. (And when you win a convert you can often reply upon their material as well as emotional support. Even if only in secret.)

Charisma is also extremely helpful for the human Wizard in my setting. The human Wizard is not a magic-user but rather a proto-scientist, alchemist, and inventor. Because he is usually "far ahead of his time" he often has to use charisma to help him convince others that his experiments, knowledge base, inventions, ideas, theories, and so forth are viable and workable. 

Another use for Charisma is in ease of rising in rank. By this I do not mean charisma assists at the outset with social rank, but one with high charisma is more likely to rise in power and rank (I am not speaking about level) within a given organization. For instance suppose one is playing a Soldier. A soldier with high charisma and a good career record is more likely to rise in rank than one with poor charisma and a good service record. If they were equal in other respects then the Soldier with the good charisma is more likely to rise in rank faster. The same for a Cleric within his church, or anyone in any organization that relies upon social and political interaction. The "charismatic cleric" (and charismatic could imply far more than just "socially popular") is far more likely to rise to the level of Bishop or Arch-Bishop than the far less charismatic or retiring cleric. Then again if one rises far enough within certain organizations (the Church, the Army, the Government, etc.) then what usually follows is a de facto if not an outright public rise in actual social status and class. (By that I mean a rise in "Real Class," going from commoner to nobleman or important administrator or officer.) So in our setting charisma doesn't necessarily affect how you start out but can be extremely useful in how far you rise and what you eventually become (outside the mere rise in level for your professional class).

So charisma can have different and profession-specific effects, as well as more general effects, depending upon the situation and the given character.

Charisma in our setting is also a racial issue. Some races have more charismatic effects upon other races, and some races are just generally more charismatic than others, and all that implies.

We also use it to imply general good fortune in some circumstances.

And finally charisma can be very helpful to any class or profession when it comes to "leadership ability." Leadership is an important component of our setting. And charisma can be used to amplify or augment leadership ability and effects. (Or suppress the leadership ability of others. Individuals can engage in influence and charisma duels.)

Admittedly though *my setting* is different from many settings in the way it approaches these matters because the intention is to make the setting far more like the real world of that time period than most, including things like Social Class and Culture being far more important than just a sort of generalized backdrop. I intend players to exploit their setting for advantage in the same way people can exploit the real world for advantage. Therefore things like rising in rank or becoming a representative of an organization are very important to character success. 

But I do very much agree with those above who implied that it depends upon how the setting is structured as to how well any particular ability or capability can be exploited. How you structure attributes to act, react, or interact within the setting will determine how successful or important nay particular attribute is, or can become.

Don't know if my ideas helped you or not but good luck with your efforts.


----------



## Liquidlizard (Apr 29, 2009)

I've actually thought of omitting charisma as such, but then again, I've always thought of it as a nice stable stat, which is interesting for those who want to boost their social game and those who want to play bardic characters. So before discarding it, I've wondered whether I can't improve it somehow. 

As one mentioned, one of the problems of charisma is that the party needs only one diplomat, whilst battles require full attention of every member. Thus even in a campaign, in which social and military action is evenly matched in amounts, there will be less charisma characters and more fighters/mages/agility based dudes.


----------



## Akaiku (Apr 29, 2009)

Barastrondo said:


> Man, that depends on the game so much and so hard. I can off the top of my head think of all kinds of situations where one person being the party diplomat isn't going to always help. What if the wizard needs to make a good impression on the local Elementalist College and the other wizards aren't going to let the bard make his case for him? What if the military insists on asking the party warriors for their opinion instead of the charmer? And if there are five party members and five incredibly hot singles hanging out in the bar, the party diplomat might not mind going off for a sixsome all the time if it's easier for him to do that than to try and talk a lady into giving Gruntax the Noisome some pity-loving.




Thing with this is that 10 cha in DnD is average person.
10 is also dump stating in point buy, more or less.
Unless you have more or less punitive action in social encounters for people who don't invest heavily into navigating them, (Remember, skill points in social things are eating up your often low amount of them you get from being a non-social class like fighter or barbarian) any of those people SHOULD be able to accomplish things like that. If nobody with a cha 10 and no social skills could get a SO, the population of that race would likely die off, as 10 is average and non-experts aren't trainied in such things.

Also, charisma is a static scale. In character people's perceptions would realistically vary. Nobody would expect a gnoll barbarian to be a master of the spoken word. Similary, if charasma is the entirity of your reptuation, anyone who wants to be known for valor and skill would paradoxically have to be less good then the unknown person. People should be able to inspire through deeds as well as words, you know?

I mean, the aloof and unlikeable prettyboy with the sword is still, often enough, the greatest swordsman ever, known far and wide. He'd have poor charasma though.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 29, 2009)

It should also be noted that you can use Charisma-based skills to get bonuses to attack rolls, AC, and damage in RCFG.


RC


----------



## Vorpatril (Apr 29, 2009)

Like some of the posters above, I included luck/fate with charisma in my 3.5 games.

We used action points that added 1d6 per point spent.  The character's charisma modifier determined how many action points could be used on a single roll.

Basically, a player with high charisma could 'nova' their action points to really make one roll count.  Since we rolled for AC (vs. a static monster attack), high-CHA characters were able to avoid certain death a few times.

With just that one rule, I noticed some players agonizing over what to put in charisma, which was my intent. 

Now in my 4e game, I don't have that rule anymore, but the lowest charisma in a 6 PC party is 14.  They call her the "ugly one"...


----------



## Barastrondo (Apr 29, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> Thing with this is that 10 cha in DnD is average person.
> 10 is also dump stating in point buy, more or less.
> Unless you have more or less punitive action in social encounters for people who don't invest heavily into navigating them, (Remember, skill points in social things are eating up your often low amount of them you get from being a non-social class like fighter or barbarian) any of those people SHOULD be able to accomplish things like that. If nobody with a cha 10 and no social skills could get a SO, the population of that race would likely die off, as 10 is average and non-experts aren't trainied in such things.




Sure, absolutely you can get average results. What I'm saying is that above-average results are desirable, and people will invest a bit in Charisma or social skills to get them. Often you can get more preferential treatment out of the guildmaster because you're charming or eloquent — that's not just a play bonus, that's absolutely realistic. 

If you have an average Charisma and no social skills, I'm not saying that you can't find a hook-up in the bar, I'm saying that the incredibly hot person you're checking out is probably more likely to go home with the guy that is doing a better job of convincing her that she would have a good time with him. You have an average skill set, so on average you get average results. People with an above-average skill set tend to get above-average results, just as people with really good killing skills tend to kill more than people who are average combatants. If you want to encourage people to think of Charisma as the legitimate approach to getting things that they want that it should be (at least based on real-world human interaction), then put in a higher class of rewards to reward their effort. 



> Also, charisma is a static scale. In character people's perceptions would realistically vary. Nobody would expect a gnoll barbarian to be a master of the spoken word. Similary, if charasma is the entirity of your reptuation, anyone who wants to be known for valor and skill would paradoxically have to be less good then the unknown person. People should be able to inspire through deeds as well as words, you know?
> 
> I mean, the aloof and unlikeable prettyboy with the sword is still, often enough, the greatest swordsman ever, known far and wide. He'd have poor charasma though.




Sure, but to a certain degree dump-statting Charisma and then still hoping to be able to influence people to a high degree is not unlike dump-statting your Intelligence and then playing your character with your full measure of tactical savvy. Reputation is important, but it's a factor rather than the sum of the whole. 

I tend to give the low-Cha types the respect and dread that they earn, but people with less fighting skill and higher social ability are absolutely able to get more out of a social situation or conflict. After all, they're paying for it by giving up some of their ability to get more out of a physical situation or conflict. If dump-statting Charisma and getting by on your reputation is all you want, that's great, you'll still be able to eat at nice restaurants and pick up friendly members of the preferred sex. But I'm still going to offer an extra level of social achievement for the people who are investing more in that side of their characters. It's only fair.


----------



## Henrix (Apr 29, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> Second, how many people do you need to be a diplomat? The answer is usually one of the pc's. If one pc does the social interaction and is good at it casue they are the social spec pc, why exactly should any other character bother? Str is a dump stat for most 3.5 casters, after all. If your job is to kill things and take their stuff, why exactly does how commanding your presence is matter?




That is how it often works in RPGs, yes.

But that's not how it really works in real life.

If you have a bunch of jerks, and one of them is smoother than the others and comes forward to talk to you, you don't forget the others are there.


But, sure, if *all* you do is kill stuff and take their things, then charisma isn't a big help.
Unless, you know, you are interested in how people react to you in town, what rumours they spread, if you can pick up girls, if the marquis wants to hire you for an important job, or even keep you around as a guard, &c.

Remember - to be scary in an impressive way you need to have some sort of charisma.
Otherwise you're scary as a mean drunk is scary.

It is the DM's job to see to it that these effects are noticeable in the world.


And a way to get that message across to the players is to have them make charisma checks. If you have them make one charisma-based check for every ten strength- or dexterity-based checks you'll find they start taking notice of their 'dump stat'.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 29, 2009)

A stat is a dump stat if it's use is not required in your game.

If you create a game where everything focuses on mystery and research, but little combat, strength is a dump stat. If you play a wizard, strength is a dump stat.
If everyone sits in heavy battle suits that make you impervious to physical harm, constitution becomes a dump stat.

You want to make a game matter, there need to be relevant mechanics to it. The biggest problem with Charisma is that people tend to spend more time in battle then in scenarios with "charisma"-related abilities. If you can't change this premise, you need to make Charisma matter there. Henchmen and Cohorts might be a way. Magic might be. Willpower might be. Heck, if you wanted, you could build a game system where charisma influences your general effectiveness in combat, since it means people fear attacking you due to your aura of authroity and confidence.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Apr 30, 2009)

I'm always tempted to use Charisma as the "luck" stat, ie when the DM wants to randomly decide which player got the bad apple of the bunch, roll a Charisma check, and lowest number gets screwed. Charisma determines basically how much other people like you, I'd also make it so it determines how much the Universe likes you too.

AR


----------



## Jack7 (Apr 30, 2009)

> It should also be noted that you can use Charisma-based skills to get bonuses to attack rolls, AC, and damage in RCFG.




What's the rationale(s) for that RC?
I think I know:



> Heck, if you wanted, you could build a game system where charisma influences your general effectiveness in combat, since it means people fear attacking you due to your aura of authroity and confidence.




But just checking.


----------



## Ariosto (Apr 30, 2009)

As has already been observed, there is no "dumping" issue when (as in all, or nearly so, of the early RPGs) scores are randomly generated.

In Chaosium's games, there's usually a significant resource-allocation aspect to initial set-up ... but characteristics and (especially) skills tend to improve with use. In Stormbringer, Call of Cthulhu, etc., someone who gets an improvement check for a social skill is not thereby giving up a check for a combat skill. (Each skill getting an appropriately significant use in an adventure gets one check, with no limit on how many skills can improve from experience.)

If the game system sets up a choice between "this" OR "that", then the valuations of players -- shaped by the consequences of those choices -- naturally shape outcomes. Example: I can play a wealthy and famous fighter, but to get the points for that I may have to take a disadvantage that leaves the character less _capable_ than a poor and unknown one. If fame and fortune are less desirable assets _from a game perspective_, then expect PCs predominantly to lack them.

One way around that is to have *separate* pools of points. Here's what you get for "combat monster" building; there's what you spend on other stuff. There can be more (or other) divisions, if there are more (or other) aspects you want to balance in well-rounded characters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Apr 30, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> What's the rationale(s) for that RC?
> I think I know:
> 
> But just checking.




Combat Advantage in RCFG allows you to use any skill in order to gain a combat bonus, if you can describe how it works.  "I engage him in flashy reparte, hoping that he will attack less forcibly" is an example of how one might use a Charisma-based skill to increase AC.

You then make a Skill check against a DC chosen by you (higher DCs reflect more bonus).  If successful, you get the bonus.  If you fail, you lose the attack.


RC


----------



## amysrevenge (Apr 30, 2009)

One thing to consider- if your created game system is meant to be robust enough to deal with players trying to eke out every bonus they can (in other words, a system that doesn't rely on the sense of fairplay of the players to maintain balance), then balancing mechanical advantages (other attributes are higher with dumped Charisma) with roleplaying disadvantages is never a good track to follow.  

Linking Charisma to luck/fate/action dice as mentioned in the thread are all good mechanical ideas to help balance Charisma mechanically and not just with roleplaying.


----------



## smetzger (Apr 30, 2009)

One thing I do...
On occasion there is the situation where there is no clear reason why a monster would attack one PC over another.  Usually a DM will roll the dice to see who the monster attacks.  I, however, have the monster always attack the PC with the lower Charisma.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 30, 2009)

Henrix said:


> But that's not how it really works in real life.
> 
> If you have a bunch of jerks, and one of them is smoother than the others and comes forward to talk to you, you don't forget the others are there.




That's actually not a bad idea for Charisma stat design. You're right, no matter how charming you are, if your friends are nudging each other and making lewd  gestures, well, you're getting nowhere. Having negative charisma serve as a penalty to all ally social skill checks is actually kind of a neat concept. It could even apply to other skill checks, such as perception ("I can't here over Bob's belching!") and knowledge ("Must you do that? I'm trying to think!").


----------



## Kask (Apr 30, 2009)

Liquidlizard said:


> If I include Charisma as basic stat it will always end up becoming a dump stat.




Hmm, I've never had a sorc, bard or Pali use it as a dump stat.


----------



## Akaiku (Apr 30, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> That's actually not a bad idea for Charisma stat design. You're right, no matter how charming you are, if your friends are nudging each other and making lewd  gestures, well, you're getting nowhere. Having negative charisma serve as a penalty to all ally social skill checks is actually kind of a neat concept. It could even apply to other skill checks, such as perception ("I can't here over Bob's belching!") and knowledge ("Must you do that? I'm trying to think!").




This has the problem of encouraging leaving the low charisma person in a box somewhere, similarly to leaving the low stealth people when you need to sneak. This is generally bad, as you will tend to get people who decide that since they aren't there and unable to do anything useful, they will run to the other room and play Haloz or something. Or perhaps use a laptop and play a different rpg online, which I've seen done.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 30, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> The biggest problem with Charisma is that people tend to spend more time in battle then in scenarios with "charisma"-related abilities. If you can't change this premise, you need to make Charisma matter there. Henchmen and Cohorts might be a way. Magic might be. Willpower might be.




Actually, I think another approach is to make bonus spells and the difficulty to resist the spell based on two stats. Have spell acquisition be based on Intelligence or Wisdom, with Charisma/willpower affecting how well you cast it. 

Yes, doing so is the dreaded split stat dependency, but martial characters depend on two or three different stats to be effective in combat (STR/CON for heavily armored melee brutes or DEX/CON finesse types or all three). It's only fair for casters to have the same dependency.


----------



## roguerouge (Apr 30, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> This has the problem of encouraging leaving the low charisma person in a box somewhere, similarly to leaving the low stealth people when you need to sneak. This is generally bad, as you will tend to get people who decide that since they aren't there and unable to do anything useful, they will run to the other room and play Haloz or something. Or perhaps use a laptop and play a different rpg online, which I've seen done.




Well, rude behavior at the table occurs regardless the rule set. But, basically, you can't have it both ways: you can't make a stat vital (charisma for social, dex for stealth) and inconsequential ("Sure, Mr. Enormous Tin-Can, come along on our scouting mission!"). DnD clearly chose mechanics that made charisma and scouting sub-optimal, but if the OP wants to change that then players will adapt by realizing that adequacy in Charisma and stealth is a part of optimization.


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 30, 2009)

Kask said:


> Hmm, I've never had a sorc, bard or Pali use it as a dump stat.




That's the irony; Charisma is a dump stat unless it isn't.

The problem has always been; if you were playing a class that didn't need a specific ability score, what does each score grant you?

Str: melee hit, damage, carrying, climb/athletics, feats of str (bending bars, opening doors)
Dex: AC, Reflex, Missile AC, stealth/thief skills, Init, avoid-falling-on-your-ass checks
Con: HP. Fort. More HP. Endurance/stamina checks. Did I mention HP?
Int: Knowledge Skills, Skill Points, Languages
Wis: Perception and Willpower
Cha: Social Skills

Lots of PC types don't need social skills: burly fighters, crude barbarians, brooding mages, silent rangers. As long as you have someone on the group who can handle diplomacy (such as a cleric, paladin or bard) you yourself rarely need to make checks. And since D&D is a team sport, the likelihood of being forced to parley with the king with only your 6 cha is fairly low (though not impossible). 

Whereas you can't rely on the rogue's high dex to aid YOUR AC. Or the cleric's high wisdom to aid YOUR will save. They can, however, talk to the king on YOUR behalf.


----------



## Kask (Apr 30, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> The problem has always been; if you were playing a class that didn't need a specific ability score, what does each score grant you?




That's why I love the C&C saving throw system...


----------



## Herobizkit (Apr 30, 2009)

I actually like how GURPS handles Charisma.  Insted of a score, it is an Advantage that grants you additional wealth and bonuses on Social checks.  You can "buy up" the Advantage to greater effect as well, or "buy down" for bonus points.

If you want to keep the Cha stat, applying something similar to d20 Modern's Wealth system and have the PC's generate income based on their Charisma scores might be worth considering, too.  Having PC's be able to access resources without spending their hard-earned gold (in the way of favours, NPC support, gear/magical item access) might be worth something to the right player and/or group.

"I can't swing a sword, but I can call in a group of mercs who can do the swinging for me.  And you say you need a diamond to resurrect your pal?  I may have a lead on such a thing..."


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 30, 2009)

OD&D got it right.  Charisma was originally a stat to enhance or hamper out of combat roleplaying.  The 5 charisma fighter might be a great warrior who fights for good, but always says the wrong thing.  "Here's your brat, she sure is an ugly bitch.", he tells the king after rescuing the princess.  He can only keep his most loyal henchmen around because he's always pissing people off.  Innkeepers are always looking for a way to fleece him out of gold because of his attitude and the way he always seems to say the wrong thing at the worst possible time.  On the other end of the spectrum, the 17 charisma guy gets the opposite treatment.  Now if you don't care about those sort of things, sure, charisma is a dump stat, but the dm should make you pay for it, just as the 5 strength guy is penalized by barely being able to drag a sword around, even if he's amazing with a longbow.  Somewhere we deviated from this method and decided it's wrong to balance combat advantages with non combat disadvantages.  The out of combat stuff, FAR outweighs the bonuses to hit or damage or hit points someone who dumps charisma gets, but it requires the dm (and the player) doing his job.


----------



## Kask (Apr 30, 2009)

JRRNeiklot said:


> OD&D got it right.  Charisma was originally a stat to enhance or hamper out of combat roleplaying.  The 5 charisma fighter might be a great warrior who fights for good, but always says the wrong thing.  "Here's your brat, she sure is an ugly bitch.", he tells the king after rescuing the princess.




It still is, at least in my games.


----------



## Janx (Apr 30, 2009)

I think it has always been very easy for GMs to enforce combat modifiers and numbers.

It's not so easy to remember or arbitrate what a 5 INT PC can do, or countermand what a 5 CHA PC says.

Especially to do it consistently or fairly.  Because the instances of being out of character are subjective.  The GM has to "feel" like what you said your PC does or says isn't compatible with your stats.

Whereas the physical stats are easy.  You add up the numbers and roll, and beat a DC.  You either hit or you don't.  You either jump the 15' gap, or you fall.



If you want CHA to matter, you need to incorporate the skills and CHA modifier in every social situation.

If the PC is trying to negotiate or convince, that's a Persuasion or Diplomacy check.  This means for every purchase (either per item, or batch or transaction) you have to roll.

If the player "role plays":

 give a +2 bonus if they say something charismatic and their PC has a CHA bonus.

 give a -2 bonus if they say something charismatic and their PC has a CHA penalty.

Basically, a low cha PC gets no extra penalty/bonus if they keep quiet, or if they act like a low cha PC.

And a high cha PC gets no extra bonus/penalty if they keep quiet or if they act like a low cha PC.


Don't reward a high CHA PC played by a low-cha player, or the inverse.

But always find ways to use CHA.

You could have a simple purchasing rule:
for personal equipment, all items cost as per the book, and you get a 5% reduction per +1 bonus, and a 5% increase per -1 penalty.  Basically, high CHA PCs get a discount.  PC may not purchase for others (bypassing the penalty), though a PC may buy party items for the party.  This means I have to buy MY sword with my CHA penalty raising the cost, but the Paladin could buy healing potions for the party and get his discount.

The purchasing modifier rule would have a pretty direct mathematical impact.  It can't be forgotten, in the heat of role-playing.  And the only people complaining about it would be the dump-stat CHA users.  Consider also, that a number of the D&D CRPGs do this already (Baldur's Gate series for Playstation), so it has validity.


----------



## Kask (Apr 30, 2009)

Ignore.  Website glitched and double posted.


----------



## Kask (Apr 30, 2009)

Janx said:


> If you want CHA to matter, you need to incorporate the skills and CHA modifier in every social situation.




I use a reaction mod whenever someone with a minus or plus interacts with NPCs over something meaningful.  I'm surprised to see that some DMs don't.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Apr 30, 2009)

My group has recently become a Warhammer group.

In WH, skills are just stat rolls on a d100. A typical starting score is 30, which is pretty lame, IMO.

Anyway, we had a doctor character who achieved social skill scores of (literally) over 100% (and he boosted his medical skills even higher).

Compare to DnD, where your ability score is outweighed by skill rank benefits. I Think the situation is a bit better in 4e, since you only get one-half "rank" a level, but the choice between training in a social skill or not is still more important than your Charisma score.


----------



## Janx (May 1, 2009)

Kask said:


> I use a reaction mod whenever someone with a minus or plus interacts with NPCs over something meaningful.  I'm surprised to see that some DMs don't.




That's kind of my point.  I have played in few games where CHA was ever asked for. GMs I've played with seldom ask.  If I sound like a well-spoken gentleman talking to somebody, the GM buys it.  Because HE's convinced.  He forgets to make a roll of it.


The only times it ever clashes, is when a PC you know has a low CHA and the player goes into eloquent speech mode to convince somebody. But then somebody usually points out the "dude, no way you're 5 CHA PC would ever say that!" and it gets retracted and redacted as if he never said it.


----------



## Hereticus (May 1, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Can charisma be something more than just dump stat?




Bluff
Diplomacy
Intimidation
Streetwise

Four very good reasons to respect your Charisma.

As my Wizard hit 6th level, I chose the Disguise spell. At 8th level I chose the skill training in Bluff feat.

The more a game values intrigue and planning over pure hack and slash, the more valuable Charisma is.


----------



## Hereticus (May 1, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A stat is a dump stat if it's use is not required in your game.




There are two kinds of "dump stats".

The first is the kind that individual players do not care about. Some players keep one stat deliberately low, to add character to the character.

The second is the kind that DMs ignore, and that IMVHO is a loss to the game when it happens.


----------



## Jack7 (May 2, 2009)

> Combat Advantage in RCFG allows you to use any skill in order to gain a combat bonus, if you can describe how it works. "I engage him in flashy reparte, hoping that he will attack less forcibly" is an example of how one might use a Charisma-based skill to increase AC.
> 
> You then make a Skill check against a DC chosen by you (higher DCs reflect more bonus). If successful, you get the bonus. If you fail, you lose the attack.




_*That's an extremely good idea RC*_, and since we use *Describe and Demonstrate* that's also one I intend in the future to use in my system. (I'll give you credit of course.) I think I might employ it a little differently but it is a superb idea.

It also frees up all attributes for creative and flexible uses, not merely pr-programmed and overly structured uses. But because of the way my game and system works what I like best is that the idea encourages creativity and innovation on the part of the player (and even the DM) rather than over-reliance upon the Designer to pre-determine the player-DM, and in-game character action/reaction/interaction dynamics. So it's not only a good usage of Charisma, it's a just plain right fine design principle. Course, if you haven't considered it then I'd use the same principle for non-combat situations as well.

Excellent idea. Have some XP.


*Well, crap RC. I can't give ya any right now. I'll catch ya later.*


----------



## GSHamster (May 2, 2009)

Kask said:


> I use a reaction mod whenever someone with a minus or plus interacts with NPCs over something meaningful.  I'm surprised to see that some DMs don't.




A lot of people complain when you try and make "roleplaying" obey dice-roll mechanics. They feel that if they as a player make an excellent speech/argument, then that action should be valid in-game, regardless of the stats of their character.

It's an argument that they would never dream of making for a physical characteristic.

It might be interesting to see a game that completely acknowledges this element of play, and only had stats for physical characteristics, explicitly leaving "soft" stats up to the player.  For example, a player might have hard numbers (3-18) for Strength, Dex, Constitution, but be required to pick exactly 3 adjectives that best describe their personality.


----------



## Kask (May 2, 2009)

GSHamster said:


> A lot of people complain when you try and make "roleplaying" obey dice-roll mechanics. They feel that if they as a player make an excellent speech/argument, then that action should be valid in-game, regardless of the stats of their character.
> 
> It's an argument that they would never dream of making for a physical characteristic.




Here's how I do it.  I start the "encounter" thus;  I take the Char mod, factor in any NPC predisposition mod, THEN I add or subtract points for effort of the players part when they make their pitch.  I then roll and add it together.  I grade for effort over acting ability.  

In this way if you are trying to RP the encounter well you get rewarded but your PCs Char stat factors in also.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (May 2, 2009)

I think mental stats should just be taken out.  The mind isn't as easy to dig definable categories out of as the body.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (May 2, 2009)

In my own home-brewed games, I've made Charisma more useful to characters in a couple of ways.

1st.  Charisma determines how far below zero a character's hit points may go before he dies.  Once the body gives out, the character's force of personality is the only thing that keeps him alive.

2nd.  Charisma determines how many action points a character gains.  In a game where a person can literally be favored by the gods, it pays to have good grooming habits (or whatever).

3rd.  Charisma related checks determine how well other characters react to your words.  You, the player, might be able to make stirring speeches or talk the pants off of a pious virgin.  Your character, on the other hand may only be able to say, "you wanna do it?"


----------



## Ariosto (May 2, 2009)

What Kask said! It's fundamentally no different than combat, if you're role-playing actual tactics.


----------



## Raven Crowking (May 4, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> _*That's an extremely good idea RC*_, and since we use *Describe and Demonstrate* that's also one I intend in the future to use in my system. (I'll give you credit of course.) I think I might employ it a little differently but it is a superb idea.





Thank you, Sir.


----------



## ExploderWizard (May 4, 2009)

I kind of like the way Pendragon deals with the issue by not dealing with it at all. Physical attributes get stats, all mental qualities must be provided by the player. If a dull player wants to be a witty charismatic scoundrel then he better be a hell of an actor.

I'm a big fan of players putting forth the effort. If a player isn't the most charismatic person in the world, but thier character is supposed to be, what I want to see is a good faith attempt. That, plus a good skill/stat will get the results. Just rolling and mumbling " I use diplomacy on him" sucks.

As a rule this means that I do like to take skills/stats of the character into account but not without any player input at all. If the character has a great stat/skill then whatever they come up with will be seen in the most favorable light. If the character has an average stat/skill then the player's reaction should stand largely on its own. If the character has a terrible stat/skill then the player's input will be taken in the worst possible light. 

As far as balancing combat and non-combat abilities, there is no reason that this isn't possible in a roleplaying game. Roleplaying should not have to be put on pause during combat encounters.


----------



## 1Mac (May 4, 2009)

ExploderWizard has a good point. It is too easy and too boring to merely say "I use diplomacy," and something more interesting should be encouraged. But the same can be said for trading basic attacks.

There are parallel solutions to these parallel problems. The more robust solution is a built-in mechanic that rewards the player for using more interesting options in combat or social encounters. This was 4e's intent when developing the powers system for combat encounters and the skill challenge system for social encounters and other non-combat events. One can even use parallel mechanics for these parallel mechanics; hence "social combat" systems that give as many tactical options for social encounters as for combat encounters.

Without developing new systems, another parallel solution is to apply bonuses for clever or interesting descriptions of whatever the player is rolling for. So a compelling description of an attack grants a bonus to an attack roll, as does a compelling description of an argument, or a bluff, or a battle tactic, or a stealthy maneuver, or any number of non-combat actions.

I take the opposite approach of ExploderWizard. Yes, the player should be able to influence the effectiveness of his character. But since role-playing is about playing characters with abilities their players lack, I feel that character abilities take prominence over any abilities the player might impart, such that any contradiction between the two should favor what the character can do. We should favor the focused combatant with excellent results when he fights, and we should favor the focused diplomat with favorable social interactions. But to give the fighter equal effectiveness at diplomacy is unfair to the player who forwent combat effectiveness to be a great diplomat.


----------



## Karents (Sep 30, 2010)

*Charisma is NOT a dump stat*

You just have to get a character that can use charisma correctly. For instance, I currently play a 3.5e Bard (level 12, but she's going through a half-celestial level adjustment...). Anyway, with the +4 to charisma that my bards template just gave her on top of a cloak of charisma, she now has a charisma score of 32. My GM uses this quite often in game play. She gets the ability to draw crowds of support just by unveiling her face. Our group never pays for food, constantly gets money, ect. She even has a few stalkers.

Anyway, it totally depends on if you play for the roleplaying or for dungeon crawling. with the rp aspect, a character with a high charisma can make for quite a few funny dungeons.


----------



## steenan (Sep 30, 2010)

IMO the "charisma as a dump stat" is an endemic D&D issue. Most games I played had no such problem or had much less of it. It was, generally, achieved in one of several ways, sometimes combined.

1. Social interactions as important or more important than combat. This also requires the social mechanics to be reasonably deep and interesting in play, so that it is not ignored in favor of pure storytelling. Games, that use mechanical descriptions of personality traits and make it possible to address them in a discussion with a measurable effect, shine here, but that part is not strictly necessary.

2. Basing some aspects of a character on player skill only, without any stats to describe them. Without social stats, they can't be dumped.

3. Choosing stats in such a way that each of them encompasses something each character works better with. When, for example, character stats correspond to four elements, charisma probably falls under Fire, along with physical power - and nearly every character needs one of these two.

4. Aiming for simulation (of genre or setting), not efficiency. When a game is not focused on challenges and makes failure as interesting as success, the question moves from "Is charisma or dexterity more useful?" to "Is playing a charismatic or dexterous character more interesting?".


----------



## S'mon (Sep 30, 2010)

The importance of a stat is determined by its importance in common in-game activities.

If a game is mostly combat, and CHA has no effect in combat, it will be a dump stat.

In my 1e AD&D/OSRIC City State of the Invincible Overlord game, PCs spend much more time talking with NPCs than they do hacking NPCs to death.  Talking often involves CHA checks to succeed at the PC's goals (I use d20 roll-under).  Success generates XP.  Therefore most players invest in a good CHA.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 30, 2010)

GSHamster said:


> A lot of people complain when you try and make "roleplaying" obey dice-roll mechanics. They feel that if they as a player make an excellent speech/argument, then that action should be valid in-game, regardless of the stats of their character.




My approach is that if the CHA 3 PC makes an excellent speech/argument, OK they made an excellent speech/argument, but they're still a slimy disgusting repulsive creature with BO, or whatever it is that makes their CHA so low, so they may not emotionally convince NPCs - the NPCs may ignore or mishear them - even if their argument is intellectually unassailable.

This happens IRL all the time.

I treat both CHA and roleplay ability as player resources.  The player deploys that good-CHA resource wisely, in conjunction with good roleplay, to maximise the in-game effect.  If you want your PC to be a beloved leader of men, you need a decent CHA, and your roleplay skills can help too.


----------



## Sadrik (Sep 30, 2010)

> Can charisma be something more than just dump stat



Yes, and you have to re-write the rules to make it more than a dump stat. Since you are your golden.

What you have to do is divvy up INT, WIS and CHA in a new way. Use INT for knowledge any skills or abilities that have to do with knowing something or figuring out something or understanding your perceptions is INT. Use WIS as the flip side of CON but for the mind and that is it so will save and perhaps concentration skill. Finally make CHA all social interaction and divine magic. Make the cleric, paladin and druid all based off of CHA. Then it becomes a STR, only used by classes who need it, but more universal in its divine magic approach.


----------



## Aurumvorax (Sep 30, 2010)

Charisma was the most important ability score pre-3e because it determined how many hirelings you could hire, their loyalty, and henchmens.  Even if the party wizard only had 9 intelligence, he could contribute to the party by using his excess money saved from not buying arms and equipment to purchase and manage hirelings.  

If you want Charisma to have impact, then it needs to be used for an important aspect of the game.  Combat is an important aspect of D&D therefor being able to pad your numbers with hired goons makes the game easier.  3e trivialized charisma by trying to make it a combat stat (increasing casting) but intelligence based casting was infinitely better because it also increased skill points and wisdom increased saving throws.  Charisma as a casting stat was undesirable in this regard unless you wanted to cheese out diplomacy.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Sep 30, 2010)

Liquidlizard said:


> I'm gathering opinions on ideas how to improve charisma stat in custom made RPG systems.




It's very simple.  Which is more rewarding?  Fighting or talking.  Which is more dangerous?  Fighting or talking.  If fighting is rewarding and not that dangerous, people dump charisma.  If fighting results in PC deaths and very little reward, people prioritise the charisma based approaches.

Just give full exps to people who talk their way past opposition, and back it with some charisma based rolls...


----------



## Ahnehnois (Sep 30, 2010)

I use an action point mechanic from UA, and made action points charisma-based. Is charisma still dumped sometimes? Sure, just like the five other stats. But it's no longer the universal dump stat for everyone who doesn't cast spells by it or use social skills. Charismatic people are heroic people who accomplish great feats. I find it an effective and logical solution.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Sep 30, 2010)

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been posted before.

In 3.5 Charisma is used to determine what level of magic spells you could cast. If you had a 15 Charisma you could cast 5th level spells. Paladins used it for healing and turning undead. Clerics used it for Turning. It was also used to modify several skills.

So at least in 3.5 it wasn't a dump stat.


----------



## Celebrim (Sep 30, 2010)

Under my rules, charisma does all of the following for you:

1) Spells for Sorcerers, Shamans, Feyborne, and Bards.
2) Channel divine power for Clerics.
3) Base stat for most Champion class powers.
4) Base stat for a wide variaty of social skills: Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Empathy, Intimidate, Leadership and Performance.
5) Determines your bonus number of destiny points.  Destiny points can be spent in a variaty of ways to mitigate the effects of bad dice rolls.
6) Basis of combat feats that focus on intimidation, aggression, trickery and providing leadership.

The basic problem with charisma is that if all it does is enhance social interaction, only one person in the party needs it.  Everyone else can pull dark cloaks over their heads, stand back and let the party negotiator handle in of the tricky stuff while they play the part of the ugly nasty looking stupid looking henchmen (and in some cases, looks need not be decieving).  

The secondary problem with charisma is that it depends on the GM to make charisma relevant.   Too many DMs take the tact that what you are supposed to do is fight.  If you don't fight, you aren't rewarded with XP.  If you try diplomacy when you aren't supposed to, it inevitably fails to yield a meaningful result.  

I basically think D20/D&D handles charisma all right.  The basic problem is hard to overcome.  The secondary problem can't be overcome by rule changes alone.  The trick I think is not to focus on making it never a dump stat, but making it a stat that can be rewarding for players of every class so that it doesn't have to be a dump stat.  The core of my approach to that is destiny/action points and a reasonably useful combat feat tree that depends on charisma.  The secondary approach to that is to make the list of skills that end up as class skills for your character somewhat more flexible, so that it requires relatively little sacrifice to end up with social skills on your class list.  It's not necessary, and probably not even desirable, to have a charisma based fighter be as effective as a strength based combat brute, all that is necessary is to provide ways for a fighter to get some advantage in combat out of high charisma to go along with the large out combat advantages he gains.


----------



## smetzger (Sep 30, 2010)

Quick little way to make charisma a bit more important.  
Whenever you would normally roll randomly to attack PCs, don't roll.  Just attack the one with the lowest score.

Not a complete fix.  But helps a little bit.


----------



## rogueattorney (Sep 30, 2010)

smetzger said:


> Quick little way to make charisma a bit more important.
> Whenever you would normally roll randomly to attack PCs, don't roll.  Just attack the one with the lowest score.
> 
> Not a complete fix.  But helps a little bit.




I like that.

"Why is everyone always attacking me?"
"'Cus your character is an unlikeable louse."


----------



## MortonStromgal (Sep 30, 2010)

Ubiquity basically has the Weapon Finesse feat for any stat. So you can trade STR for CHA on a to hit roll. Your commanding presence makes the enemy cower leaving an opening for you to hit or something like that was the reasoning (don't have my book on me). The thing that I loved was I could make someone like Maximus Decimus Meridius without having to have every stat high. It didn't necessarily make logical sense but it was a ton of fun.


----------



## NewJeffCT (Sep 30, 2010)

I've never found charisma to be a universal "dump" stat in game.  Sure, for a player that does not need charisma, it can be a dump stat.  However, why does the burly and surly dwarf fighter or the loner ranger need to have a decent charisma?  Why wouldn't CHA be a dump stat for that type of PC?

But, if you're a class that needs CHA (bard, cleric, sorcerer, etc) and/or wants to interact with NPCs, then it is not a dump stat.  

I think it was more of a problem in earlier editions, as it was not as important for things like turning undead and there were no CHA based sorcerers in 1E/2E that I can recall.  However, even then, we had players that took Diplomacy as a NWP and did not use CHA as a dump stat.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Oct 1, 2010)

There is an easy fix. 

Get rid of building and back to _generating _stats. Nothing to assign= nothing to dump. Some will have high scores, and others will have average or low. 

Done. 

Brought to you by the D&D easy button.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Oct 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The basic problem with charisma is that if all it does is enhance social interaction, only one person in the party needs it.  Everyone else can pull dark cloaks over their heads, stand back and let the party negotiator handle in of the tricky stuff while they play the part of the ugly nasty looking stupid looking henchmen (and in some cases, looks need not be decieving).



This is very true; it is almost like being the "trap" guy. If one person in the party is good at it then no one else needs to be. I think coming up with rules that involve more of the party in these endeavours would be fruitful. I remember your wonderful essay on traps from a different thread and could not help but make the parallel here.



Celebrim said:


> The secondary problem with charisma is that it depends on the GM to make charisma relevant.   Too many DMs take the tact that what you are supposed to do is fight.  If you don't fight, you aren't rewarded with XP.  If you try diplomacy when you aren't supposed to, it inevitably fails to yield a meaningful result.



In addition to this, I think players try to skirt around having a low or average charisma by using their own personality at the table to accomplish things beyond the average means of their character.



Celebrim said:


> I basically think D20/D&D handles charisma all right.  The basic problem is hard to overcome.  The secondary problem can't be overcome by rule changes alone.  The trick I think is not to focus on making it never a dump stat, but making it a stat that can be rewarding for players of every class so that it doesn't have to be a dump stat.  The core of my approach to that is destiny/action points and a reasonably useful combat feat tree that depends on charisma.  The secondary approach to that is to make the list of skills that end up as class skills for your character somewhat more flexible, so that it requires relatively little sacrifice to end up with social skills on your class list.  It's not necessary, and probably not even desirable, to have a charisma based fighter be as effective as a strength based combat brute, all that is necessary is to provide ways for a fighter to get some advantage in combat out of high charisma to go along with the large out combat advantages he gains.



I think certain swashbuckling styles would be aided by charisma as much as dexterity. If you had advantangeous combat feats that had charisma pre-requisites, I think you can make that style and the charisma stat more valid than otherwise. You need to have charisma matter in combat as well as out of it. The morale ideas as well as "action/hero" points would further validate charisma as a worthy ability.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 1, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been posted before.
> 
> In 3.5 Charisma is used to determine what level of magic spells you could cast. If you had a 15 Charisma you could cast 5th level spells. Paladins used it for healing and turning undead. Clerics used it for Turning. It was also used to modify several skills.
> 
> So at least in 3.5 it wasn't a dump stat.




No, it's still a dump stat, if you're not a sorcerer or paladin. (I won't even say cleric, as turn undead was weird.)


----------



## Barastrondo (Oct 1, 2010)

Celebrim said:


> The basic problem with charisma is that if all it does is enhance social interaction, only one person in the party needs it.  Everyone else can pull dark cloaks over their heads, stand back and let the party negotiator handle in of the tricky stuff while they play the part of the ugly nasty looking stupid looking henchmen (and in some cases, looks need not be decieving).




Depends on the setting and scenario, though. If the adventure is playing out at the Imperial Palace, and you're informed to leave your ugly nasty-looking stupid-looking henchmen at the door, then the rest of the party will spend a lot longer doing absolutely nothing, and probably the one person in the party with Charisma can't catch all the clues in the Palace gala because he can't be everywhere at once. And of course, many characters have secondary goals that require at least a modicum of social skills: lead an army, found a thieves' guild, win the heart of the efreeti princess, and so on. You are not going to charm the Princess Tira'Qabal of the Thousand Molten Swords by standing in the back of the party with a black cloak on while your buddy says "You should hook up with my ugly nasty-looking stupid-looking henchman."

Of course, that feeds right into your next point:



> The secondary problem with charisma is that it depends on the GM to make charisma relevant.   Too many DMs take the tact that what you are supposed to do is fight.  If you don't fight, you aren't rewarded with XP.  If you try diplomacy when you aren't supposed to, it inevitably fails to yield a meaningful result.




Exactly. And it also depends on the players as well. You get much better returns on charisma if you're interested in goals that aren't best achieved with fighting; if all you want is gold and XP, yeah, that's also going to result in fighting at all times even if the DM is open to other avenues. 

When I offered to run a 4e game for some of my co-workers, they voted for a Renaissance Italy-inspired fantasy game. Without much prompting from me, they gravitated more toward Charisma-notable builds: the rogue took a build that used Charisma as a rider for many of his powers, the "necromancer" used a warlock as the basis, and the newcomer who offered to play a leader settled on a warlord. All of these players have demonstrated strong interest in making allies, wooing romantic interests, getting involved in intrigues, that sort of thing. The swashbuckling milieu made it understood from the beginning that rewards like that would be common, if you were up to claiming them.

Rules tweaks like adding riders to certain builds that add given bonuses if you have a high Charisma help. But the real meat and drink of a game where above-average Charisma is common is incentives to impress, charm and inspire NPCs. And that probably relies on table dynamic more than anything.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Oct 1, 2010)

Well, here's an idea.

Maybe the modifier for Charisma can be used as a percentage bonus to xp?


----------



## DumbPaladin (Oct 3, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> Well, here's an idea.
> 
> Maybe the modifier for Charisma can be used as a percentage bonus to xp?




Is that fair to the player running a Fighter who rolls something like 18, 16, 16, 12, 8, 8 and has to put his two bad stats into SOMETHING, and doesn't want to choose Str or Con?  

I think the right path is to reward players for not automagically ignoring Charisma, not penalize them.  A bonus to luck, or destiny/action points, plus the social interaction, perhaps a bonus to gold per level due to aristocracy, something along those lines for making up for the loss of 1E & 2E's hireling rules ... 

I really like the idea of high-CHA people being less likely to be targeted in combat, too.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 3, 2010)

If someone had lots of Charisma, and they're my opponents, I'd probably go after _them_ because I think they might be the leader and killing them might dishearten the other opponents.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 3, 2010)

One approach might be to allow characters to make Charisma-based attacks to inflict penalties on opponents ("I intimidate the kobold for -2 to attacks and damage until the end of the encounter!") If these were Cha vs. Cha attacks, and if they had prerequisite Charisma scores, you could make Cha very worthwhile.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Oct 3, 2010)

In DDO you can use some of your Charisma based skills to affect monsters you fight. In some cases, taunting can cause the monster to change opponents.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 3, 2010)

I could picture a feat that gives you a Taunting power. You make a Charisma vs Will attack, and if you hit, the creature attacks you. If you fail, you mark them (so they're at -2 if they don't attack you, but you're not controlling the action).

One advantage of a feat: it could be used for multiple classes, like a charismatic fighter, a warlord, a warrior cleric, a barbarian, or even a ranger-based (or new class) "swashbuckler".

I don't know if any core rule feats give powers, but I just bought Dark Sun and there's a whole chain of arena-based weapon-specific feats that let you trade out a power for a weapon-based power.

But I wouldn't agree with a power that just forces an opponent to attack; one of the disadvantages of an MMO is the AI. In order to get a monster to attack "intelligently", aggro mechanics were developed, but those are exploitable and are anyway no substitute for a DM's judgement.


----------



## NichG (Oct 4, 2010)

In mid to high level 3.5ed D&D, Charisma is actually overpowered as a stat. No other stat can be used as a modifier for as many things as Charisma can with the right feat and class choices:

Divine Grace, Oriental Adventures Shaman class ability, Ruin Delver's Fortune: Charisma to all saves

Various spells (Sirine's Grace, etc) and templates (anything incorporeal, various undead), as well as the Battledancer base class (Dragon Compendium) and the Ascetic Mage Monk/Sorceror path: Charisma to AC

Marshal: Charisma to skills or a particular save (stacks with Divine Grace)

Slippers of Battledancing (DMG2): Charisma to attack and damage

Snowflake Wardance: Charisma to attack

Dry Lich (okay, this is very situational): Cha mod added to Con mod for determining hitpoints

Various Feats: Cha replaces the normal stat for the various saves

So Cha can substitute for Str, Con, Dex, and Wis in many cases with the right things. Sometimes it can even do so in multiple simultaneous stacking ways: with the proper things, it's possible to get 3x Cha mod to Will saves, for example. A lot of these would be limited in most games, either because they require some strange character choices or because the sources aren't allowed, but it just goes to show how ingrained the perception of Cha as a dumpstat is, since so many game designers went out of their way to allow it to do mechanical things. 

In a game where some of these options are available, a character designed to exploit Charisma can easily end up being overpowered due to the ability to collapse all of their stat dependencies into a single stat. Doing so doesn't even really require going out of a character concept - a Paladin could use Divine Grace for the save bonus and the Slippers for the attack/damage modification, and could also go into Marshal to emphasize their role as a leader; a Bard could use Snowflake Wardance, the Slippers, Ruin Delver's Fortune, and Sirine's Grace all in theme, and Marshal again wouldn't be too far a jump. A rogue could go the battledancer route, which has some overlap already, and UMD scrolls or wands of the various spells.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 4, 2010)

Janx said:


> A smart tactics player will do better in combat (with the same game stats) then a stupid player.  Their real world skill affects the game, not by numbers, but by how the maneuver and avoid doing stupid things.
> 
> Real world persuasiveness is the same thing, except for social interactions, instead of combat interactions.  It manipulates the game, beyond the numbers.  It's just the way things work.



This means it's incumbent on the referee to set up encounters where both a player's skill at playing the game and the character's ability scores and skills are tested.

Roleplaying is the application of player skill; out-of-combat resolution is handled by stats like Charisma and related character skills and abilities.







S'mon said:


> My approach is that if the CHA 3 PC makes an excellent speech/argument, OK they made an excellent speech/argument, but they're still a slimy disgusting repulsive creature with BO, or whatever it is that makes their CHA so low, so they may not emotionally convince NPCs - the NPCs may ignore or mishear them - even if their argument is intellectually unassailable.
> 
> This happens IRL all the time.
> 
> I treat both CHA and roleplay ability as player resources.  The player deploys that good-CHA resource wisely, in conjunction with good roleplay, to maximise the in-game effect.  If you want your PC to be a beloved leader of men, you need a decent CHA, and your roleplay skills can help too.



Exactly.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 4, 2010)

NichG said:


> In mid to high level 3.5ed D&D, Charisma is actually overpowered as a stat. No other stat can be used as a modifier for as many things as Charisma can with the right feat and class choices:




Most of those are bad examples. They're non-core and often class-based. (No one is saying it's weak for sorcerers, so it's not a surprise it's not weak for classes like OA shamans.)



> but it just goes to show how ingrained the perception of Cha as a dumpstat is, since so many game designers went out of their way to allow it to do mechanical things.




None of these actually address the problem. They're just making stuff that works like a paladin. It's still useless for most characters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 4, 2010)

the Jester said:


> One approach might be to allow characters to make Charisma-based attacks to inflict penalties on opponents ("I intimidate the kobold for -2 to attacks and damage until the end of the encounter!") If these were Cha vs. Cha attacks, and if they had prerequisite Charisma scores, you could make Cha very worthwhile.




I did this in RCFG, and there is a thread around here somewhere where Primitive Screwhead (I think) converted the idea to 4e.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Oct 4, 2010)

> Is that fair to the player running a Fighter who rolls something like  18, 16, 16, 12, 8, 8 and has to put his two bad stats into SOMETHING,  and doesn't want to choose Str or Con?




Is it fair for the Wizard of the party to not have the same high Strength as a fighter so he can lift those heavy spellbooks?

Give me a break with this all characters must be exactly the same thing.


----------



## NichG (Oct 4, 2010)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Most of those are bad examples. They're non-core and often class-based. (No one is saying it's weak for sorcerers, so it's not a surprise it's not weak for classes like OA shamans.)
> 
> It should be no surprise that some classes benefit more from a stat than others. Fighters and Barbarians don't benefit very much from Wisdom unless they are specifically built to take advantage of it (boosting a single save is not much to get from a stat), and only a little bit more from Int. Anyone with heavy armor isn't getting much from Dex. Wizards and sorcerors aren't getting much from Str.
> 
> ...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Oct 4, 2010)

To those wondering why you would roll a dice instead of just spouting an epic speech:

Speech givers and speech writers are _two different jobs_ for a reason.  Not everyone who has a way with words has a way with _speaking_ them.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 5, 2010)

NichG said:


> It should be no surprise that some classes benefit more from a stat than others. Fighters and Barbarians don't benefit very much from Wisdom unless they are specifically built to take advantage of it (boosting a single save is not much to get from a stat)




Still more than you get from Charisma (until 4e, anyway): anyone can use a high Wisdom to boost your Will save. I usually dumped a 12 or 14 into a fighter or ranger's Wisdom just for that.



> and only a little bit more from Int.




Still, anyone can use skill points.



> Anyone with heavy armor isn't getting much from Dex.




But they usually get at least +1 (enough to make a 12 or 13 worthwhile) and for some reason wearing heavy plate has no impact on your Reflex save.



> Wizards and sorcerors aren't getting much from Str.




But rogues, rangers, and just about anyone who ever uses a non-ranged weapon (and even then, sometimes) gets at least a small bonus from it. I don't think I've ever seen an 8 Strength rogue, but 8 Charisma rogues? All the time! (I'm assuming you're taking Weapon Finesse... which does nothing for damage. And at least in 3.0 you could not sneak attack COUPies.)

Still, many of those options are based on items and spells, which can be made use of by any class (the latter through scrolls, wands, magic items using those spells, asking the party caster to help, etc). 



> It's been awhile since I've seen a campaign that won't at least consider material from the Complete books, for example. With the Complete books, PHB 1/2, DMG 1/2, and Spell Compendium things can get pretty far in Charisma's favor already.




Much of the material in the Complete Books and Spell Compendium were, in fact, overpowered compared to core material. Of course sometimes they were trying to _fix_ previous problems, but more splats means more work for the DM, since you can't rely on their playtesting. (And I would know; I've playtested some products.)



> Now, I'm not saying that these alleviate the problem, but these highlight a different side of it. Charisma is a very bipolar stat - in the hands of someone who doesn't look up all this stuff and figure out how to break it, they won't get much mileage out of it. In the hands of someone who goes out of their way to make a 'Charisma-build' its overpowered. It isn't an easy stat to get an even value from. I guess my point is, 3.5ed designers felt that Charisma was a dumpstat and added all sorts of mechanical ways to take advantage of it, but all of them sort of obscure and specialized. And so it becomes the sole domain of building for mechanics and not just something that comes naturally out of a character concept.




Another possibility are weaknesses in the skills system and lack of Defenses.

Almost anyone can use Strength. If you use a melee or throwing weapon, it's useful. The number of classes who shouldn't bother are pretty small: wizard, sorcerer, maybe druid. As a result, I see Strength dumped to 8 very rarely, and usually only for the classes I just listed.

Almost anyone can use Dexterity. It boosts ACs for all classes, even though for some (paladin, cleric, fighter) the boost might cap out at +1. Still, it's a +1, and a bonus to Reflex saves never hurt. In short, no one likes to die, so anyone can use Dex. I see Dex dumped for clerics and paladins sometimes, and in part because Charisma cannot be dumped for either, IMO.

Is there anyone who does *not* want Con? Virtually noone ever maxes it out, but everyone likes hit points and save-vs-Destruction spells.

Intelligence is an odd one. Even obscure skills can be useful from time to time, to the point where the only times I've ever seen a low Int is if someone wanted to play a particularly dumb half-orc barbarian... for the roleplaying. (It helps that barbarian skill point totals don't suck.) I see Int 10 all the time, but  almost noone likes the stigma of having a dumb character. Mechanically a pretty weak stat. (Even weaker in 4e!)

Wisdom is a bit better. It boosts Will saves. Even a Wisdom of 12, giving you a +1, is better than a Wisdom of 10, which gives you a +0. I don't think I've ever seen a Wisdom score of 8 (as they will have no will of their own when facing spellcasters) except for roleplaying purposes. Again seen on dumb barbarians, who can boost their Will saves with rage.

Charisma ... affects a few skills and some class abilities (some significantly). Some classes rarely if ever use such skills. As stated above, it's quite binary. But for some characters, it's completely useless, and you might as well dump it to 8. If you're a fighter and you don't plan on taking ranks in Intimidate, dump it to 8. If you're a rogue who isn't going to take ranks in Bluff and Improved Feint, dump it to 8. If you had a Charisma of 12 instead, your untrained Bluff score would have been only 2 points higher. And if you took training in Bluff... it would still only have been 2 points higher.

It has no impact on your defenses whatsoever, and (unlike the variety of attack forms) everyone wants and needs higher defenses. In 4e, it can apply to a defense, and I think I'm seeing more non-8 Cha characters now, because they can dump Wisdom without much penalty. (Also seeing lots of high Int, low Dex warlords. Basic min-maxing.) Also, some classes that didn't find it that useful before (eg rogue) now find it *very* useful with the right type of build. (And warlord is a new class, in terms of core rule classes. Charisma is probably more useful overall in 4e, both because more classes "like" it, and because it can boost a defense.)

It doesn't help that many social skills are poorly written. Yes, you can spend an action using Intimidate to inflict a minor penalty on an opponent for 1 round. Or you could just stab him again. Which seems like the better option?

Even the heavy skills-based d20 Modern suffers from this. Unless you want to take some of the better Charismatic talents (Inspiration, I'm looking at you) or Frightful Presence, Charisma doesn't do a whole lot. You can (and I've seen this) play a low Charisma character with Charismatic levels, boosting their social skills with talents like Fast Talk while spending stats on things to make up for their low hit points and attack rolls.


----------



## NichG (Oct 5, 2010)

I'm not intending to debate whether a campaign should be core/non-core/etc, just observing that most games I've seen allow some splat books at least.

It may be that I've just played in games with a different culture, but in the last two campaigns I've played in, and the last campaign I've run, at least one player has always used Charisma to become basically untoucheable in some aspects. One was a ~Lv10-20 campaign over a few years where the party caster went the Lich route and ended up with an AC in the 60s and who knows how high saves, while the party armored fighter had AC around 30. 

The second (the one I ran) was an E6+gestalt game where one of the party ended up having a Will save of something around +70 by using various stacking Charisma boosts (he used Paladin, Shaman, and Marshal to pull it off), though he didn't end up doing the AC/attacks/damage/etc stuff that make it get really silly.

The third (that I'm currently playing in) is a high level game and features two people with Charisma-based characters, one of which is focused on Charisma to the detriment of pretty much everything but Int (and yes, that character does have an 8 Wisdom), the other of which is a bit more well-rounded.

It's something that really comes into play at higher levels, where the +1 to +3 to Will saves from not dumping Wisdom is easily swamped by other sources, +1 or +2 to AC from not dumping Dex is pretty much irrelevant, etc.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 5, 2010)

NichG said:


> I'm not intending to debate whether a campaign should be core/non-core/etc, just observing that most games I've seen allow some splat books at least.




Except some of the examples you posted involved really rare rules (gestalt) or some heavy cheese. I could make a monk/whatever/whatever/whatever with an AC of 50+. That doesn't make the monk good.



> It's something that really comes into play at higher levels, where the +1 to +3 to Will saves from not dumping Wisdom is easily swamped by other sources, +1 or +2 to AC from not dumping Dex is pretty much irrelevant, etc.




I was picturing going through lower levels, but it seems to me that, sticking to the core classes, it's hard to make Charisma useful for most characters. (Doesn't mean it's totally useless for everyone.)


----------



## NichG (Oct 5, 2010)

Well in the case of the +70 Will save it was gestalt but characters capped at 6th level, so we're not talking about anything a 12th level character couldn't also do.

As far as core only goes, I guess what I'd say is this: the thread asks 'can Charisma ever be more than a dump stat?' and my answer is 'In 3.5ed with splat books, yes, but it goes too far'. If you're running a 3.5ed game core only and find that the person who went high into Charisma isn't getting much out of it, allow them to use some of the feats that swap Charisma for other stats from non-core, even give them the feats for free, and problem solved. 

Then again, perhaps thats not the real problem. Suggesting Charisma as a defense is interesting. It might be that one wants to force people to think twice before having low Charisma or even punish those that excessively dumpstat it (i.e. 6 Charisma), rather than to reward those with high Charisma. In that case, a DM has a lot of options: 

They can occasionally have enemies that have Charisma damage/drain attacks, or poisons/diseases that target Charisma. They can have intelligent magic items that refuse to work for the owner unless they can hit a certain DC Charisma check. They can, as has been mentioned, have NPCs and monsters react to a passive PC based on their Charisma (i.e. first impression). 

My general feel is its better to encourage players to be brilliant than shackle them to their small numbers, since everyone has more fun when clever things are done. As such I don't like to penalize that sort of dump-statting in the roleplay interactions - if I'm going to do that, I'd rather do it mechanically, and focus mainly on giving bonuses than giving penalties.


----------



## Jon_Dahl (Oct 6, 2010)

Just to add my two coppers in, I've noticed more misconceptions about Charisma than any other ability score. It seems that the whole concept of Charisma is difficult especially for beginners.

*Charisma is a dump stat*
It depends really. If the party has a good spokesman, that goes a long way. Otherwise low Charisma can hurt you. For instance for a random munchin player Cha 4 might not seem like much, but if you roll untrained diplomacy checks you have as much as chance to make someone your enemy than your friend... and this just when you TRY to befriend them! Now that is hard IMO
*Low Charisma means that you're scary*
Fairly common misconception. Low Charisma means that you are repulsive, can't make yourself understood or something else like that. If you are 9 feet tall, you have a giant axe and you seem like an aggressive creature with hardly any intelligence, then you are threatening DESPITE your Charisma or any rolls.
*Low Charisma is dependent on your race and alignment*
No it isn't. You are still an irritating human scumbag with Cha 4, even if you have LG alignment.*
Low Charisma means you're quiet, especially if it's a PC*
Not necessarely. Many people (me included) like people who are quiet listener-types. It's possible to have amazingly beautiful woman who hardly ever talks or some ugly mutant who loves to hear his own voice. Low Charisma is not about how much you talk, it's about how and when you talk. Someone with a really low Charisma would talk at inappropiate times, interrupt people, talk too quietly or possibly yell all the time and commit faux pas after another.
*If your face gets mutilated, your Cha drops right?*
This is a hard one, because Cha is also about physical attractiveness. There is no clear answer to this, at least from Core. In my games I rule such mutilations as an additional effect, usually that people get shocked to see at first but it doesn't chance their attitude. After all they could feel pity for you or respect your struggles or just feel disgusted about your face.


----------



## The Shaman (Oct 6, 2010)

Jon_Dahl said:


> *If your face gets mutilated, your Cha drops right?*



In _Flashing Blades_, a scar on the cheek *increases* the character's Charm, which is totally in keeping with the genre.

Losing your nose, on the other hand . . .


----------



## cattoy (Oct 6, 2010)

If you want Charisma to not be a dump stat and your game is combat-centric, try this:

Charisma limits a character's ability to benefit from magic items.

I'll leave the exact implementation as a mental exercise for any interested parties, but a simple system could work thusly:

For each point of charisma, you can have +1 worth of magic.

or

For each point of charisma, you can have x,000 gp worth of magic items.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Oct 6, 2010)

But why should one player be penalized for not having a high Charisma?

And so on.


----------



## steenan (Oct 7, 2010)

You can't have a cookie and eat it too.

Either dumping charisma is not a problem or charisma is useful and having it low hurts. If something is not a dump stat, dumping it is bad for you - "penalized" if you want to call it this way. There is no other way.

The only question is what kind of penalty will work well in play.


----------



## DumbPaladin (Oct 7, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> But why should one player be penalized for not having a high Charisma?





For the same reason other players are penalized for not having a high Constitution (by being easier to kill), or for not having high Strength (they do less damage in melee combat), or any other stat.  There should always be a reason why a character is less in one area than another, if the difference between the two is mostly attribute-based.  

Otherwise, as pointed out earlier in this thread by a few people, if a player with a character whose Charisma is 6 can smooth talk kings and magistrates, Charisma becomes a fairly useless attribute except for those characters who need it for casting.


----------



## NichG (Oct 7, 2010)

There's two sides to something like a stat: penalties for having it low, and rewards for having it not-low. They'll lead to different behaviors with respect to dump-statting. I would say that low Con is penalized (everyone needs resilience against attack to be functional), but low Str is not except in the case of carrying capacity, since if you're a wizard, having low melee damage is basically ignorable.

For example, take Charisma.

RP penalty: NPCs tend to harass low-charisma characters regardless of what they do. 

Mechanical penalty: Charisma is used as a defense against some forms of attack that are relatively common, and so low Charisma means you get knocked out/killed/etc more often. 

RP reward: NPCs spontaneously tend to show up and do things for any high Charisma characters in the party. High Charisma means you start as nobility and gain various contacts and priveleges from it.

Mechanical reward: You can use Charisma checks to shape morphic planes. You can use Charisma as a bonus to hit/damage/what-have-you. You gain bonus spells based on Charisma.

Rewards will tend to encourage bipolar stat distributions in the party - the people who synergize well with the rewards will have high or at least above average values, while the people who don't care about those rewards will have low values. Penalties will tend to encourage across-the-board average stats to avoid weak points.


----------



## cattoy (Oct 8, 2010)

Diamond Cross said:


> But why should one player be penalized for not having a high Charisma?
> 
> And so on.



Typically, we don't rate our players. Too many bruised egos.


----------



## Jack Colby (Oct 8, 2010)

Charisma is not a dump stat in older editions if you have followers and want their morale to be good.  They can help a lot in combat, so any fighter type would absolutely want Charisma as high as possible for the sake of survivability and not having your fellow combatants run away on you.

I can't understand why modern games have made Charisma more of a dump stat by removing hirelings and henchmen from the game.  And I think the luxury of assigning your ability scores where you want them only exacerbates the situation, because if you rolled high Charisma you'd darn well try to make use of it in play. 

Restore these two things to your game and watch Charisma be important again.  Just a suggestion...


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 8, 2010)

Jack Colby said:


> Charisma is not a dump stat in older editions if you have followers and want their morale to be good.  They can help a lot in combat




They also make things much more complicated. I don't know, maybe in 2e, with its simpler yet more complex (yeah, that made sense  ) rules, you could have multiple characters per person, but that doesn't work well in 3.x or 4e.



> so any fighter type would absolutely want Charisma as high as possible for the sake of survivability and not having your fellow combatants run away on you.




I don't know about 4e, but in 3.x there was this feat called Leadership. It was Charisma-dependent. But a lot of players (myself included) did not _want_ followers. This is especially true in post 2e games, where characters could be unique without needing to use kits.

In 4e, they have a charismatic fighter-type, the warlord, which I think is the best of the new core classes. Instead of wasting time using his abilities on wimps though, he buffs his allies. Let the villainous charismatic warlord-type use his special abilities on minions.



> I can't understand why modern games have made Charisma more of a dump stat by removing hirelings and henchmen from the game.




Because some people don't want hirelings and henchmen. In fact, a lot don't. I hardly ever saw them even in high-level 2e games I've been in, and it wasn't because the DM didn't want them either.



> And I think the luxury of assigning your ability scores where you want them only exacerbates the situation, because if you rolled high Charisma you'd darn well try to make use of it in play.
> 
> Restore these two things to your game and watch Charisma be important again.  Just a suggestion...




I don't want six dice rolls made at character creation to control every aspect of my character from now on. Options, not restrictions, okay?


----------

