• Paradachshund@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    11 months ago

    There are a lot of things I like about 5e, but charisma making you good at ALL forms of charisma simultaneously is one of my least favorite changes they made.

    • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      I really dislike the 6 traditional stats for many reasons, and this is one of them.

      The chronicles of darkness games have a nicer stat system, in my opinion. It’s 3x3. One axis is Power - Finesse - Resist, and the other is Physical - Mental - Social. They have names (strength, dexterity, stamina are the physical ones, for example), but this is the underlying concept.

      Demanding people’s attention is Social Power. Being subtle is Social Finesse. And keeping cool is Social Resist. Now it’s possible to make a character that is The Center of Attention who isn’t subtle, or someone who cannot be spooked but also isn’t very good at talking to people.

      If I was going to do some hacking to D&D, I would probably rip charisma out entirely. It’s half-baked and its implementation introduces a lot of un-fun problems.

        • Zagorath@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          11 months ago

          You probably have heard of it and just don’t realise it. Chronicles of Darkness was a spin-off of World of Darkness, which is the world consisting of games like Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse.

          Chronicles includes the games Vampire: The Requiem and Werewolf: The Forsaken. The names were different, but really it’s essentially a different version of the same game. A version with more substantially different lore than normal, but fundamentally a games about vampires, werewolves, etc.

          I haven’t ever really looked at Chronicles, but I have the 5e Vampire: The Masquerade Core book. While the specific stats’ names might change, the idea is the same. You have three physical, three mental, and three social stats. Each is broken down into power, finesse, and defence.

          Strength, Dexterity, Stamina. Charisma, Manipulation, Composure. Intelligence, Wits, Resolve.

          Even outside the game, it’s a really good system. It helps greatly clear up the ambiguity you sometimes get over Int vs Wis checks in D&D, or Wis vs Cha saving throws.

          • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            11 months ago

            I think I’m even more interested in the system than the setting. I always end up making my own stuff anyway. I’ll have to check this out someday.

            • Zagorath@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              I definitely think that it’s the best system for engaging in the hobby of “how would you stat up this real person/non-RPG fictional character?” The overall mechanics of the game are very focused on telling the kinds of stories that the World of Darkness is designed for, but the basic character statting is really good and broadly applicable.

            • Shyfer@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I’ve used the system itself for a lot of homebrew myself so I get the desire. I’ve also played lots of normal mortal games with the Chronicles of Darkness system without vampires or mages involved.

    • RandomLegend [He/Him]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Most of the times we decide spontaneously what ability to use for a certain skill. The fixed stat+skill is super annoying and breaks immersion.

      The wisdom 20 / int 8 Druid not being good in medicine? … yeah maybe not good in school-medicine but knowing what herb can treat what illness is a thing of wisdom, not intelligence by default.

      Then, yes, Strenght for intimidation.

      Intelligence for deception - think of an elaborate network of pseudo-facts and weave them together in a complex way so the “opponent” is so overwhelmed that he just choses to believe you.

      And so on so on…

      • Paradachshund@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        11 months ago

        I like your philosophy of trying to pick a more appropriate skill when it feels right. I need to remember that one for my next session.

        • SourceOfMistypes
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          11 months ago

          I mean it’s literally the way the rules intend it. Most just get confused by the character sheet showing the most common ones.

          I’m playing for 5 years with my group now and still get some confused looks when I ask for e.g. a Charisma (Investigation) check.

      • bouh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        That’s why there is survival and medicine. And a roll has much more variation than the +2 or 3 that you are considering here.

        And as always, if there are no chances or consequences for failure, don’t roll. That’s in the dmg.

      • bob_lemon@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        The scale is different. In 3e, that +5 charisma bonus is less noticeable compared to that +10 skill bonus, so specializing in a skill is more relevant.

        • zombiecalypse@feddit.ch
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Ah, that makes sense. It sounded like you were saying that 5e was the first to use Charisma for Intimidation, but bards being more intimidating than barbarians is a long standing (if questionable) DnD tradition.