Charisma

[m7600]

This differs a bit from the official ruling, because for me, a low Charisma person is someone who would be overall quite passive, hesitant or apathetic. Heroes, especially adventuring ones, should have mid to high Charisma if they're to have the determination to keep going through their trials and tribulations of their adventures, of which there will be many. Years of players using Charisma as a dump stat has meant that most people think determination is divorced from Charisma though, which I feel shouldn't be the case.

100%. Another thing that bothers me is when someone gives their Charnam a high Charisma but then their character does uncharismatic things all the time, without seeing a problem there.

I fully admit it's a rather clunky system though, especially with the many crossover spells between different class spell lists (if I had my way, every spellcasting class would have its own unique spell list).

100%. Bards should only cast song-like spells. They shouldn't be able to cast a generic healing spell like Cure Light Wounds, for example.

This isn't Inherently bad design. In fact, making sure all mechanics have value is good design in my book.

100%.

The rationale is that arcane magic is managed through command of magical formulae (intelligence) and divine magic is managed through insight (wisdom). You could also have a type of magic where magical energies are refined/shaped by force of will (charisma).

Right, but hear me out a sec. If what you say is true (and it is), then WotC should give charismatic magic it's own name, comparable to "arcane" (intelligence magic) and "divine" (wisdom magic). What's charismatic magic called? That's the first thing that they need to fix on this issue, IMHO. Personally, I would suggest something like "psionic", which is what they used in some 2nd editions settings, most notable Dark Sun, in which all living beings, even plants, have a bit of psionic energy (as opposed to, for example, the Forgotten Realms, in which psionics are rare, and it's generally associated with creatures like Mindflayers).

I think where WotC failed is that they just regurgitated the spell list from TSR's editions, gave the sorcerer the exact same spell list as the wizard and then gave the bard a limited spell list from both lists despite the fact they channel magic the same way.

Yeah no, I'm not on board with WotC on that. Surprise, surprise. As I was saying to @Zaxares, bards should have their own unique spell list of song-like spells, which should in turn remain inaccessible to users of arcane and/or divine magic. Similar considerations for Sorcerers, except instead of being song-like spells, they would be some other kind of psionic spells. Does that make sense to you? I'm not so sure myself, now that I'm typing it. It sounded better in my head.

Back to the original topic, though. You could come up with a rationale to tie magic to any kind of attribute. Magic comes from an interdimensional chaotic void with extremely high gravity (Strength). Magic is taxing to the physical form and requires great endurance to weather the energy (Constitution). Magic requires extremely complicated and precise gestures (Dexterity). And so on.

I don't think I'd like to have that in the lore, but I'm intrigued by the idea. Care to elaborate a bit?

 

[JustKneller]

100%. Another thing that bothers me is when someone gives their Charnam a high Charisma but then their character does uncharismatic things all the time, without seeing a problem there.

Yup. That's right up there with players who tank Int and then steamroll the other players to solve every puzzle in a game. I've heard players use the excuse that their character is basically an asshole that can get away with it because of their Charisma, but frankly, I find that an excuse to be a shitty player.

100%. Bards should only cast song-like spells.

Agreed. They just kinda mishmashed the arcane and divine lists for bards. It was a really low effort venture, if you ask me. If they did something with Bards like what PoE did with Chanters, that would have been more on the money.

Right, but hear me out a sec. If what you say is true (and it is), then WotC should give charismatic magic it's own name, comparable to "arcane" (intelligence magic) and "divine" (wisdom magic). What's charismatic magic called?

100% agree. I don't really feel like WotC put a lot of effort into the design. For the lore they imply, they would have absolutely needed to craft different spell lists for wizards, clerics, druids, sorcerers, and bards. Each group has a different philosophy and source for their powers. They should have different powers. It's especially blatant for spells like Bigby's, well, anything which is literally a spell formula created by a wizard and not something one should just be able to cast by winging it (i.e. a sorcerer).

I don't think I'd like to have that in the lore, but I'm intrigued by the idea. Care to elaborate a bit?

D&D (2e, specifically) actually opened the door to the possibility when they gave specialist mages other attribute requirements. You could have six different magic classes, each one with one attribute as primary. Mash up the arcane and divine spell lists and recategorize the spells. Spells that alter the self or allies? Constitution. Spells that alter others? Strength. Spells that have a projectile/targeting component? Dexterity. Illusions? Intelligence. Psychic abilities? Wisdom. Enchantments and charms? Charisma. You don't need to have a mashup of druids, holy rollers, Vancian wizards, cowboy sorcerors, etc. Whatever your magic's origin story is, it forked off into these different schools and its so complex, you can only practice one. Or, learn whatever you want, but you need to do a spellcasting check based on the corresponding ability score to cast the spell successfully and/or without consequence.

 

[m7600]

Whatever your magic's origin story is, it forked off into these different schools and its so complex, you can only practice one. Or, learn whatever you want, but you need to do a spellcasting check based on the corresponding ability score to cast the spell successfully and/or without consequence.

Right, hear me out a sec here. That's another can of worms. I could be wrong, but to my mind, that's the discussion of where tabletop gaming stands today as a hobby. It's gotten more mainstream, more commercial, more popular, and thus more watered-down from a technical standpoint. But, -hear me out here-, it was probably the same thing (this is my theory, anyways) that happened when D&D split from the tabletop Wargaming community. I'd bet money on the possibility that those oldschool grognards think that RPGs are watered-down versions of wargaming. Because Wargaming, unlike RPGs, are about strategy and tactics. You win wars with strategy, and you win battles with tactics. See where I'm getting at? RPGs don't rely on strategy, just tactics. And a purely tactical thinker will never be as good as a player that is good in both strategy and tactics. But all of this is up for debate, really.

 

[Skatan]

"I think if spell lists were tailored to the class (and method of magic), it would have come off much better."

This is the truth. A bit off topic to the Charisma subject, but I feel the game system and rules are severely lacking in that regard. Bards should have had thematic spells that revolves around pure semantic songs, using their voices to instill fear, rage, love etc and not have the same arcane spells (though arbitrarily fewer) as every other hedge mage out there. PoE had interesting ideas with their "bard", the chanter, though it had it's own less appealing mechanics too. Haven't played any other game in the genre that have tried to be truly different and of course all DnD/PF games have to stay true(ish) to the source.

 

[m7600]

A bit off topic to the Charisma subject, but I feel the game system and rules are severely lacking in that regard. Bards should have had thematic spells that revolves around pure semantic songs, using their voices to instill fear, rage, love etc and not have the same arcane spells (though arbitrarily fewer) as every other hedge mage out there.

Oddly enough, this is one thing that Diablo 2 gets right. The Necromancer does necromancy. The Sorceress does sorcery. It's plain and simple, and I like it that way. Of course, when you have a billion different magic-users, like in D&D and Pathfinder, it arguably gets more complicated. But I would argue that it wouldn't. In fact, that would give you tons of new materials for publication: a book for every class, so you have a Necromancer tome, a Sorcerer tome, a Druid tome, a Bard tome, etc.

 

[Skatan]

True. It's funny with DnD (and PF), they are both elevated but also shackled by their past. They can do gradual changes in their editions, but if they would dare to stray to far away from the core, then I guess they would risk losing players/fans.

 

[JustKneller]

Right, hear me out a sec here. That's another can of worms. I could be wrong, but to my mind, that's the discussion of where tabletop gaming stands today as a hobby. It's gotten more mainstream, more commercial, more popular, and thus more watered-down from a technical standpoint. But, -hear me out here-, it was probably the same thing (this is my theory, anyways) that happened when D&D split from the tabletop Wargaming community.

I agree that it has become more mainstream and watered down. I think this is only in part due to WotC's approach to the hobby. I think another large part of it has been the rise of self-publishing and the lack of quality control with what's out there. Not to be a dick, but there are a lot of people who put some poorly designed faff with a pretty package into a pdf and then punted it. This has not helped raise the bar here.

I'm not sure if I'd agree that the origins to the hobby were meant to simplify wargaming. If anything, combat mechanics in wargames are much simpler than the early RPGs. My understanding, and I can be wrong, is that RPGs basically emerged from tabletop gaming that decided to focus more on individual units than larger scales (battalions and whatnot) and then the players really getting into the possibilities with having a single character. Because of this, RPGs actually added a dimension of complexity that you couldn't get from wargames (which were really just about winning a battle and only factoring things like line of sight, distance, etc.).

That being said, I don't find D&D to be terribly strategic or tactical, even with the clunky rules and battle mats. I've noticed that a lot of D&D fights just end up with a bunch of minis in the middle of the table whacking each other until one side dies (and modern D&D skews the RNG in favor of the players so it can be pretty moot).

 

[m7600]

I've noticed that a lot of D&D fights just end up with a bunch of minis in the middle of the table whacking each other until one side dies (and modern D&D skews the RNG in favor of the players so it can be pretty moot).

Yeah the combat mechanics are the least appealing aspect of the game. But as a DM I genuinely, honestly, don't know how to simplify it any further. I mean, there's stuff you can do, but if you want to keep playing more or less the same game, then I would suggest removing a large chunk of the RNG from combat, and just rely more on common sense. For example, is my character a fighter? If yes, then I automatically hit the skeleton I'm fighting against, unless something extraordinary were to occur. And that doesn't get factored in when you roll 1d20 plus/minus modifiers to see if the fighter hits the skeleton in the situation just described.

 

[Zaxares]

100%. Bards should only cast song-like spells. They shouldn't be able to cast a generic healing spell like Cure Light Wounds, for example.

Hmm, I wouldn't say they shouldn't be able to cast healing spells. Instead, I'd give Bards a healing spell, but it wouldn't be "Cure Light Wounds" (maybe something like "Mending"?) In terms of game effects, it too also cures xd8 HP per casting, but the way it works would be different in terms of flavour. For example, perhaps divine healing just instantaneously mends your wounds, with no side effects. Bardic healing, on the other hand, is more like stimulating your body's ability to heal to an insane degree (similar to how a cat's purring has actually been shown to aid with the speed of recovery); this does come with a downside though, in that because it's still natural healing, you feel ravenously hungry afterwards, and you'd still scar normally. So divine healing is overall superior, but bardic healing is still a respectable substitute when a Cleric isn't around.

Yeah the combat mechanics are the least appealing aspect of the game. But as a DM I genuinely, honestly, don't know how to simplify it any further. I mean, there's stuff you can do, but if you want to keep playing more or less the same game, then I would suggest removing a large chunk of the RNG from combat, and just rely more on common sense. For example, is my character a fighter? If yes, then I automatically hit the skeleton I'm fighting against, unless something extraordinary were to occur. And that doesn't get factored in when you roll 1d20 plus/minus modifiers to see if the fighter hits the skeleton in the situation just described.

One of the best PnP combat systems I ever saw came from a system called "Dragon Warriors". Characters had two values: "Attack" and "Defense". Attack represents your ability to successfully hit things, and Defense represents your ability to avoid attacks. So if your Attack was 10, and the enemy's Defense was 5, you would need to roll 5 (10-5) or less on a d20 to succeed on your attack. The key here was that, in order to attack multiple foes, you had to split your Attack value between the attackers (you get to choose how many points go to each). So if you had Attack 10 and you were up against 2 enemies, you could split your attack 10-0 (you're focusing on just one foe), 5-5 (you attack both equally) or 7-3 (you're attacking one or the other).

The same works for Defense as well, which meant that against multiple enemies, you could very easily get overwhelmed and defeated, which I felt was quite an accurate nod to real life fights. Strategic positioning and use of terrain was important to make sure that enemies couldn't all gang up against you, and although a skilled Warrior might be able to easily handle a Goblin, trying to fight 5 of them at once would be a much more difficult proposition. (It also helped with the somewhat ridiculous concept of like a level 10 Fighter just easily mowing down swathes of level 1 mooks with barely a scratch.)

The downside of this system is that it involved more calculations and rolls to get through combat, so it would slow things down a fair bit at a table, but I feel like it would have worked much better for a CRPG, where the computer handles all of these calculations for you.

 

[m7600]

Personally, I feel like bards shouldn't be magic-users in the first place. It just doesn't add up at the end of the day. Sorcerers, fine, but they should use Int, not Cha.

Bards should be more like Barbarians. Instead of Rage, they get bardic skills. But they're not magical, just artistic. That's what should set the bard apart from other classes. And if art is useless as far as dungeoneering goes, then so be it.

 

[JustKneller]

then I would suggest removing a large chunk of the RNG from combat

It's not a bad idea. I look at D&D combat like one of those overly complicated algebraic equations from high school that you then needed to simplify and ends up being something basic like x=6. There rarely are any meaningful choices for players in the individual combat rounds, but having all the bits and bobs gives the illusion of meaningful choices. Frankly, I find D&D combat to be pedantic and frequently redundant.

Of course, simplifying it doesn't necessarily improve on the game, it just streamlines it.

 

[m7600]

Frankly, I find D&D combat to be pedantic and frequently redundant.

It's watered-down wargaming. Being pedantic and redundant is what defines it. And I say that as an RPG person.

 

[JustKneller]

It's watered-down wargaming.

I can't disagree with this. It's the equivalent to getting your kid a toy cell phone instead of a real cell phone. It doesn't really do what a real cell phone does, but you can pretend it does.

 

[Skatan]

Hmm, I wouldn't say they shouldn't be able to cast healing spells. Instead, I'd give Bards a healing spell, but it wouldn't be "Cure Light Wounds" (maybe something like "Mending"?) In terms of game effects, it too also cures xd8 HP per casting, but the way it works would be different in terms of flavour. For example, perhaps divine healing just instantaneously mends your wounds, with no side effects. Bardic healing, on the other hand, is more like stimulating your body's ability to heal to an insane degree (similar to how a cat's purring has actually been shown to aid with the speed of recovery); this does come with a downside though, in that because it's still natural healing, you feel ravenously hungry afterwards, and you'd still scar normally. So divine healing is overall superior, but bardic healing is still a respectable substitute when a Cleric isn't around.

I love this idea! And I too have in the past pondered on similar things, ie that some kinds of magic should indeed be based on bodily functions, ie if you like you propose increase the natural healing rate unnaturally, then you need calories to sustain it. I remember the very early episodes of the TV show Flash had him eating copious amount of calories because him running faster meant he used them up faster. I liked that idea a lot. Feels more grounded in 'reality' rather than just saying "magic" and then throwing out all logic.

 

[Black Elk]

I think Bard is a celtic word via the Welsh, so I just picture Sian Phillips dressed up as some kind of ancient Gaul-ish witch hehe.

It'd be a cool idea if Bardic 'magic' had a certain aspect that was inverted from the norm, so when the crowds are larger then the spells are somehow more likely to succeed or more potent. Or basically that the power scales depending on how many other Characters or NPCs are around. The more targets the better.

Whenever I picture any sort of actual Bard from history, I just assume they had super elaborate stage production and were essentially the rockstars of their eras. Like some sort of Grateful Dead show, where having more heads around has particular mechanical advantages that emerge. So similar to that situation where the fighter is taking on that horde of goblins or lvl 1 monks, but where if you have a Bard on board when that happens, the trash mobs become crash mobs, and can then work to the party's advantage. To turn the tables and invert the usual dynamic, where more random enemies or bystanders means more problems, here it would be like a boon.

Again, not unlike how Clerics have turn/control/destroy undead as a situational ability, doing the same thing for the Bards in a big AoE type burst. Basically the whole thing should be more AoE I guess, so less specialized target but more the randomized table thing (maybe like what we got from Wild Magic, or the Sorcery sub-class in the current edition). Some spells work this way already I guess, the hypnotic patterns and various crowd control stuff coming over from the Arcane lists, but they could definitely be made more bard specific.

I also think there is plenty of room to drift into the Druidic origins here, and craft a spell list that is unique but which hits the hallmarks. Mighty Morphin' Polymorphing changing into an animal, even a fish, or anything that's like Pied Piper centric. I think there are some things that could lean into choosing voice or a sound, not that bards need to be musician exclusives. To me the key aspect is the story-telling, but since instruments ended up being pretty cool in BG3, I could imagine instances where the bard maybe chooses a Reed instrument and that's like associations with the wetlands or rivers, swamps and marshes and birds. So that Bard might have a whole Crane Bag circle, that leans more magical. Wheras another type of bard might take up the horns, or the strings, or the drums, each with certain animal or plant associations depending on the materials used to create those instruments. Like they all come from animals and plants basically, so that could be part of the Charismatic extension. Like where you need the group or the environment to help make that magic work. Even if it's Magic Paintbrush style, where the animals and plants come to life and take part in the song, cause that's pretty classic. Like it's the whole Apollo/Orpheus motif going on.

Just like Druids and Bards used to need high CHA to be available as a class choice with that as secondary stat requirement, I think it makes sense that there is overlap, but having a completely unique list of spells, with different forms of canting (even if the ultimate effects end up similar) would help to make everything more harmonious. In the latest iteration, things do feel sorta all over the place, like Class fantasy got the real Mr. Potato head treatment, mix and mash.

I think the hybrids are fun, but the more of them there are the harder it is to just play as like a regular rescue Ranger or whatever hehe.

 

[m7600]