Core Charisma rules

I would like to see a Core rule involving uses of Charisma to alter outcomes. Strength is used to defeat enemies. Dexterity is used to Hide (therefore cannot be targeted). What about a specific rule for Charisma being used in influence outcomes?
Some have suggested a Morale based rule would cross the line in to mind control, but isn't that what Charisma does? Perhaps a condition such as Influenced, Intimidated, or Fascinated. They have Charmed as a condition. Bluff skill has used a feint mechanic.
The Core rules will not include skills, but instead skill dice for use with ability checks. I like this idea, especially if classes get a lesser skill die with a second ability.
Lets give Charisma its proper due and allow it the same mechanical heft the other abilities get. 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

I feel Charisma needs to be responsible for all forms of compulsion: Charm-Diplomacy effects, and Fear-Intimidation effects.

Not Wisdom.

Wisdom is already powerful, being responsible for Perception.
I would be fine with a morale rule based on charisma, if they let you decide what happens. Something like make a Charisma check based on your hit points and other factors. If you fail, then you have the Frightened condition and may run away...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
The frightened condition could simply be you cannot move in the targets direction, or attacks made against target are at disadvantage.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Having Charisma affect your stolidity in battle seems reasonable.  It would certainly make fighters think twice before dumping it... I guess Int would become the default fighter dump stat, which maybe means Int needs some help, depending on your perspective about such things.

A simple (and optional) morale mechanic might be nice, and having Cha resist more mind-effecting spells/effects would definitely help boost it's usefulness.

Maybe if Charisma allowed you to "rally" your allies, to bolster and/or inspire them, and you could gain training in a "rally" skill (don't like that name, just the word that comes to mind).  Not sure exactly how that would work mechanically... I'd be worried about stepping on the warlord's potential toes, but I don't see why other classes with sufficient Cha shouldn't be able to bring their leadership to bear in combat.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

I imagine Charisma allowing you to place conditions on targets.
Examples could include:
Frightened-cannot move toward source (Intimidate)
Confused-attacks toward source at Disadvantage (Bluff)
Inspired-ignores Charisma based condition (Rally)
Charmed-cannot attack source (Diplomacy, already exists)
Perhaps the Warlord would benefit because they get the skill die bonus to Charisma ability checks.
Dexterity allows you to Knock Prone and Hide, which place conditions as well. Strength allows you to Push, Grapple, and otherwise incapacitate through damage. Lets see concrete core rules for what Charisma can do! Characters who invest in Charisma should have as much control in a situation as someone who devotes themselves to Strength or Dexterity. Imagine being able to target an opponents Cha or Wis to condition them.
These conditions can be used by Spells as well. They could have saves to negate.
The DM can grant Advantage or Disadvantage to these attempts as they see fit. The monster is bloodied? You have Advantage on Charisma checks to Frighten. The town guard is here to arrest you? You have Disadvantage to Charm them. 

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

I'd go for Charisma vs Charm-Diplomacy effects

Wisdom vs Confusion-Intimidation effects.

alternatively -

Intimidation could go against their wisdom, 5 higher = -1 to hit for their side, 10 higher = frightened condition.

Charm could go against their charisma, 5 higher = -1 to their Int-Wis and Chr rolls, 10 higher = charmed condition while within 50ft for the next hour.

Key things for D&D - Where is the character from and why do they do what they do? / Recurring NPCs - allies and enemies / Plot, World and Personal Events.

I'd go for Charisma vs Charm-Diplomacy effects

Wisdom vs Confusion-Intimidation effects.

alternatively -

Intimidation could go against their wisdom, 5 higher = -1 to hit for their side, 10 higher = frightened condition.

Charm could go against their charisma, 5 higher = -1 to their Int-Wis and Chr rolls, 10 higher = charmed condition while within 50ft for the next hour.



Tiered Conditions is a good idea. Cannot Charm unless they are already Friendly (or Inspired, or whatever the initial condition is called).

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Charisma should be used in all areas of
charm powers
illusion powers
telepathic powers such as knowing the thoughts of others, changing their thoughts, blocking their memories,
number of henchmen, servants, followers..
intimidation, diplomacy,
Hey, let's have morale rules. The party member with the highest charisma can increase the moral of the party and decrease the morale of the targets.










Feint Strikemain actioncha vs wis is rolled for the attack instead of str vs ac or other roll type
Morale can be Charisma based conditions. That way players can effect the outcome of the game through abilities other than Strength and Dexterity. Makes the Warlord an easier class to build as well.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

 
number of henchmen, servants, followers..



Work on mechanics of this in this topicWink
Charisma should be used in all areas of
charm powers
illusion powers
telepathic powers such as knowing the thoughts of others, changing their thoughts, blocking their memories,
number of henchmen, servants, followers..
intimidation, diplomacy,
Hey, let's have morale rules. The party member with the highest charisma can increase the moral of the party and decrease the morale of the targets.


For Illusion, Wisdom might make more sense, because of Perception. This Perception is both to “see thru” an Illusion, recognizing errors, and to create a convincing Illusion, keeping track of the details that comprise an accurate Illusion.
Similarly, creating a forgery (false document, false relic, fake art, counterfeit money, and so on) would use Wisdom to make sure all of the details are perfect. The forger may not even around when others use the object (such as counterfeit money) as part of an ongoing deception, so Charisma in the sense of people skills is less of a factor.

If a forgery requires extensive technical expertise, such as creating chemicals for pigments or metallurgy for metals, then possibly require an Intelligence check to correctly produce the materials, but use a Wisdom check when actually constructing the item that can “pass” inspection, meeting all of the known characteristics that will be observed.



It seems coherent to use Wisdom for forgery (in other words, a non-magical illusion), because the Rogue uses Wisdom as a key ability anyway, for Listening and Spotting, expertise. The same perceptiveness is also useful for excellent forgeries.
Similarly, creating a forgery (false document, false relic, fake art, counterfeit money, and so on) would use Wisdom to make sure all of the details are perfect. The forger may not even around when others use the object (such as counterfeit money) as part of an ongoing deception, so Charisma in the sense of people skills is less of a factor.

If a forgery requires extensive technical expertise, such as creating chemicals for pigments or metallurgy for metals, then possibly require an Intelligence check to correctly produce the materials, but use a Wisdom check when actually constructing the item that can “pass” inspection, meeting all of the known characteristics that will be observed.


I'm pretty sure people don't "see" a forgery into reality, they create it and that takes int.
My two copper.
It still seems more like Wisdom.

An intelligent person doesnt necessarily have the holistic artistic skill to pull together a perfect forgery.

I am thinking about reallife archeological forgeries. The people dealing in the big money frauds seem to have high Intelligence (themselves masters of archeology, chemistry, geology, epigraphy), but beyond the raw data additionally have amazing perceptive skills to pull it all together into an “art”.

Moreover, some forgeries are technologically simple, dont require special Intelligence per se, but do require perceptive skill.

The rules the OP required already exist:

www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Diplomacy_Skil...

Under "Influencing NPC Attitudes"


Also, with Intimidation you can apply the "shaken" condition.
With Bluff you can feint in combat.

All that can be made without points in any skills or feats, a simple Cha check.



What I realized from experience is that Charisma is already an extremely useful ability.
Mostly it depends on the DM running the campaign. If he includes the use of Charisma more frequently in the game players will start valuing it more (a lot of DMs tend to "dump" the Cha from their games just as players do for their characters). 
In the 3ed games we run nowadays around here I very rarely see people dumping Charisma because they know they'll be missing it a lot.



(a better system for the Diplomacy's DCs would be welcomed, though, so that table-consulting is not needed too often)

 
From your comment, I would like to see some of this good DM practice written down in 5th edition for DMs who want to get better.

I think that all of these charisma, wisdom and intelligence ideas need to be part of the core in a very easy to understand format. 2nd edition did some of this to an extent. I would like to see it come back.


I suppose the DMG could come with a session specially dedicated to the use of Charisma in game, for the DM.

The problem that frequently happens in many games is that players dump their Charismas to 8, 7 or even lower, and then simply act the player instead of acting the character.
And then the DM lets the player have his way because he doesn't want to hinder the "role-playing."

Well, I tell you, role-playing is interpreting your character. If you made that choice of dumping your Cha, then act it.

Say, a player with dumped Cha wants to talk an NPC out of something... he presents his argument to the DM and recites all the lines of his dialogue to the NPC.
The DM, imo, in this case should call for a Cha roll, saying "well the character you chose to play simply does not have all that social tact to act this way, so let's have the die say if this time he managed to bypass this defficiency of his or not."

Probably in the case of the same scenario involving a character with higher charisma, the Cha roll wouldn't even be needed.



The same could be said for Intelligence. If you chose to dump it then bear with interpreting a dumb character.
I have a suggestion for Charisma.  Outside the abilities use in saves vs. charm and compulsions, posters seem agreed that Charisma should influence PC to NPC reactions.  How about a step beyond the normal NPC and introduce an aspect for divine interaction between PC and gds. Charisma check rolls could provide player interaction with divinities.  A bad roll and you have to interact with a divinity who might not like you. Vica Versa for a good roll. 

Idea stolen from 13th Age.
While rules for influencing NPC attitudes can be useful (though sometimes problematic), I'm much more interested in a system for using Cha to influence your allies' morale.

You can Bluff to feint, and Intimidate to "demoralize" an enemy....  Maybe you should be able to "remoralize" an ally, Persuade them to fight on or redouble their efforts?

So you'd say some rousing words and roll a Charisma check (applying Persuade if you're trained), and your roll could aid (or even take the place of) an appropriate check or saving throw for the ally, such as a save to shake of the Frightened condition.  Might be a worthwhile conterpart to the current "Help" action.  It would probably have to be an action to keep it from being too good, but that risks making it an entirely undesirable option.  The idea obviously still needs some work.

It still seems more like Wisdom.

An intelligent person doesnt necessarily have the holistic artistic skill to pull together a perfect forgery.

I am thinking about reallife archeological forgeries. The people dealing in the big money frauds seem to have high Intelligence (themselves masters of archeology, chemistry, geology, epigraphy), but beyond the raw data additionally have amazing perceptive skills to pull it all together into an “art”.

Moreover, some forgeries are technologically simple, dont require special Intelligence per se, but do require perceptive skill.

Int encompasses knowledge.  One must have precise knowledge in order to create a forgery.

An archaeological or artistic forgery seems like a corner-case in D&D terms.  Unless you are running a game that revolves around art and/or archaeology, forgery in D&D is generally going to apply to documents (as per the Charlatan background trait).

Regardless, I don't think that you can encompass artistic ability in a single ability score.  I would say that that sort of thing lies outside the scope of ability scores, in the realm of backgrounds (or just rules-independant roleplaying).  But, given the ability to create forgeries (as through the aforementioned Charlatan background trait), Int seems like the best score to determine how accurate and convincing the forgeries are, with Cha as a possible supplement if you are present when trying to pass them off as authentic.

"I want 'punch magic in the face' to be a maneuver." -- wrecan

Wisdom is used for disbelief, to notice when details of an illusion are “off”. For the same reason, it seems Wisdom is also necessary for the creation of an illusion, to anticipate any details that would betray itself.



If someone is unperceptive, it seems they are unable to mimic something or someone.

Attention to detail is vital for any kind of illusion, whether magical or mundane.
Wisdom is used for disbelief, to notice when details of an illusion are “off”. For the same reason, it seems Wisdom is also necessary for the creation of an illusion, to anticipate any details that would betray itself.



Not necessarily true.  The ability to recognize something as being false isn't the same as understanding why that thing is false.  To give a real life example, human-like CGI animations in the Uncanny Valley lack some feature of a real person that makes them obviously false, but that doesn't mean that a normal person knows what it is the animation is lacking.  We don't identify them as being unreal by listing off specific features and seeing if they match up, yet that kind of list is the thing you would need to actually construct a convincingly real animation.
Rastapopoulos-
the rules you site are 3e. I am talking about Next. Also, the core Next will not use skills. But you are right, examples do exist.
There are some Charisma based skills. Reduce them to conditions that you can apply by rolling a Charisma contest. Frightened for Intimidate, Charmed for Diplomacy, Dazed for Bluff. Takes an Action to perform maneuver. The better you succeed the longer the condition lasts. By including them as conditions you do not need skills in the game. The DM can impose Adv/Dis to situations as needed. Simple and eliminates much of the worst rules from previous editions.


On Saving Throws-
I like the idea of Fort/Ref/Will myself. Sticking with the individual abilities is ok, but I don't want to see more saves.     

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

5e doesn't use Fortitude. I think it should reduce to three saves.     

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Instead of a Charisma check, a Charisma CONTEST should be used to determine outcomes and if a condition can be applied to an opponent. That way someone with appropriate skill can counter against the attempt.
Given the Frightened (Intimidate) and Charmed (Persuade) already are in the playtest rules, the only other condition that needs to be in place is one that mimics the Bluff skill. I would include Dazed as a condition.
Dazed-Attacks against the creature grant Advantage.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

An ability contest is generally prohibitive because it requires extra rolls and becomes excessive quickly when affecting multiple targets.



The only time an ability contest seems fun is when it is player versus player. Possibly that includes special NPCs who the DM wants to use as a “player character”.
I've actually been wondering why charisma isn't used for willpower related checks. Although it's outdated, the sorcerer's main ability score was charisma and he needed to harness that willpower in order to use the spells. Additionally, the experimental rules for attuning magic items are tied to charisma based willpower. You can attune to as many items as your willpower allows, which is determined by your charisma score. And if you need to test your willpower against a magic item's (like if it was cursed) then you use your charisma mod. But then how come all the spells which seem to be based on willpower (i.e. charm person and cause fear) use wisdom instead? It's rather inconsistant. Honestly, I wouldn't mind if they used "use either charisma or wisdom" but if it was to be only one then charisma seems to be the way to go.
An ability contest is generally prohibitive because it requires extra rolls and becomes excessive quickly when affecting multiple targets.



The only time an ability contest seems fun is when it is player versus player. Possibly that includes special NPCs who the DM wants to use as a “player character”.



Good point about multiple targets. Perhaps a group of targets gets Advantage or a group bonus. Or if you stick to a Check the DC is higher for multiple targets. The idea of Frightening a group of Goblins, or Ralling the troops should have a simple mechanic.

Scald-
I agree with you. That is why I like the 3 saves Fort/Reflex/Will. Force of will could either Wisdom or Charisma, Reflex can be a reflection of intellect as well as agility.  

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Rastapopoulos-
the rules you site are 3e. I am talking about Next. Also, the core Next will not use skills. But you are right, examples do exist.
There are some Charisma based skills. Reduce them to conditions that you can apply by rolling a Charisma contest. Frightened for Intimidate, Charmed for Diplomacy, Dazed for Bluff. Takes an Action to perform maneuver. The better you succeed the longer the condition lasts. By including them as conditions you do not need skills in the game. The DM can impose Adv/Dis to situations as needed. Simple and eliminates much of the worst rules from previous editions.


On Saving Throws-
I like the idea of Fort/Ref/Will myself. Sticking with the individual abilities is ok, but I don't want to see more saves.     




Well, ability checks are the same as skill checks, really, just without the possibility of adding the skill bonus to the roll.

In 3ed you could just roll Cha vs Wis to feint if neither the attacker nor the target had points in Bluff and Sense Motive respectivelly.
So I suppose we could use the same mechanics in 5ed.
It's an ability roll, and if you're using skills you add the skill dice.

Same thing for intimidate... you could use demoralize to apply shaken in 3ed with just the ability roll as well, no need for points in Intimidate.
So we could have that in 5ed too.

As for Charmed, I think they're already making it so you can have a "charmed" npc with a cha roll, are they not?
As I understood it the Charmed condition is no longer something exclusivelly related to magic, it just means the target will act friendly towards you.
I think it's more or less like the NPC Reaction of 3ed, only simplified to be a single condition, instead of many "levels" of reaction.
Same case, I guess, Diplomacy should apply then if you use skills, only Cha if not.

Dazed... I don't know, seems a bit too much. Unless you're interpreting dazed more like the "fascinated" we had in previous editions. But to me dazed sounds more like "half-stunned" or something like that, something more physical.



To be frank I'm kinda disappointed with the 5ed skill system being so simplistic.
You choose four skills, and that's about it. And the skills just get the same better die as you level.
3ed's skill system was what I loved most about that edition. It gave character so much diversity outside combat-rules and so many interesting choices on what to raise or not when leveling.
You could have a character say "well I've never forged a weapon before but I think I'm gonna start learning some blacksmithing, maybe not much, just a few points."
And if you take away skills entirely from the game you're basically saying "well, all characters in the world are blacksmiths, they just go visit a forge and roll their ability score".

They could be optional (well, any rule in the book is optional and they don't even need to be labeled "optional" to be so) but it could be a more elaborate optional rule for those who like very much to play with skills. I've had many players like that who would rather even focus their characters on skill use instead of combat.
Not "mathematically-complex" kind of elaborate... but "gives you plenty of options as you evolve your character" kind of elaborate.


ANYWAY, I'm slipping away from the topic here...
Even for those who don't like using skills, their basic rules are the same as ability checks, so all those options from 3ed for demoralizing, feinting, etc, could be easily applied to 5ed's ability rolls.



Rastapopoulus-
By creating a core Charisma based mechanic to impose condition you eliminate the need for Skills to define if you can Frighten or Charm. The current rules do not specify that you can impose a Condition, but implies you can make someone friendly towards you. By implying actual Conditions you can force PCs into certain behaviors. If the Town Guard are Intimidating, then you have the Frightened Condition when opposing them. Might make the Rogue think twice before he pulls one of his stunts... again!
If a group chooses to use skill points and named skills instead of the skills dice then the skill description can be reduced to "Intimidate allows you to impose Frightened on targets". Simple and elegant.
Dazed my not be the best name for bluffing or feinting. Confused maybe? Whatever the name the target grants Advantage.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.

Distracted! That is the name of the condition relating to bluff!
I can imagine using multiple ranks or tiers  of conditions as well. A lesser and greater form of condition. Again these conditions can be used by spells as well as ability. Some spells may not be an all or nothing effect and could allow for a greater command of condition with a more successful roll.
I would limit the number of Charisma based conditions for a Basic rules set to 3, but imagine modules can expand on them, particularly Spell Modules.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of any failed saving throw, including but not limited to petrification, poison, death magic, dragon breath, spells, or vorpal sword-related decapitations.