Reimagining Charisma

Tuvstarr on the field, by John Bauer

 

In my current iteration of rules, I am using only four attributes. 3d6 in order, but you have a (2 in 6) chance to increment one of them by one every level up.

Strength is roughly mixed with constitution. The score is equal to your inventory slots until you are encumbered, and each modifier adds +1 HD (which at some amount add to your attack prowess). Probably the most useful attribute score at level 1 if we get practical.

Dexterity modifiers give you either a weapon proficiency (each has its own trick) or a sneak proficency (re-roll a thief-related roll once per rest)

Wisdom score is required by certain magic items to be used, instead of a class-based cap. Positive modifiers add one spell slot each

Intelligence is strictly non-magical. You have a list of backgrounds that are mostly dressing, but when you have an intelligence bonus you get an extra die when performing related tasks (lockpicking, bushcraft, navigation, etc. That kind of marginal stuff). Not only that, but once per bonus and per expedition you can retroactivelly produce an item on your inventory that is related to your background or is on the basic items list of the closest rulebook at hand. This is often the main bonus of it.

I like this approach a lot. I like that the impact of the scores is small enough to make bonuses a nice gift, but not mandatory in order to have a competent PC; and that they help everyone to paint the concept of the character in our heads: thats what I missed out the most when I have played "attributeless" versions of the game. To the point that I have come to think that the main mission of the 3d6 in order roll was originally such: to generate a random avatar with distinct features.

Thats why I miss charisma being in the game. I don't need it at all by its traditional gaming uses: reaction rolls work IMHO much better unmodified, or modified by the character's approach. To put it roughly: violence might give you +1 versus submissive monsters and -1 versus dominant ones, the reverse may be true for kindness. Scheming-type monsters may get -1 if you show yourself in need of something, etc. And as for number of retainers, I have never had use for that. No PC ever I've played with has ever had more than one, so I couldn't care less about it. 

If I put charisma back to add a new layer of character depth to the pcs, it has to have some mechanical effect that at least represents symbolically what charisma is. And I actually have some idea; not defined enough but I am on my way:

Charisma is an abstract combination of (in unknown quantities) purity of heart, heroism, determination, uprightness, kindness, virtue and being chosen by fate. In a way, this makes a charismatic character more "lawful" for all alignment related effects, so it will probably replace alignment if you use it (I wasn't, actually). It is what a true knight has, that makes him different from a common men at arms; or what turns a peasant girl into a saint, as opposed to her local priest.

Your charisma score will be quite obvious for good or bad to both princesses and witches and other magical beings in the world. Doing unlawful things may decrease it. Devils and other malefic imps will surely tempt you or offer temporary power so you end up "Saving Throw versus decreasing your score by 1d6"; while completing a dangerous quest for an unjustly dethroned lady, or swearing to protect her with your life will surely increase it by 1. Monsters and men alike might give a fuck about your wisdom or your intelligence, but sure they will many times treat you differently depending on your charisma.

OK BUT WHAT DO THE MODIFIERS DO? well, some or all of those:

*You get one "revive token" per charisma modifier, and they never refill. Once you fail a death save, you can spend one to roll again. Good results will bring you back no matter which kind of doom you faced, with +1 extra charisma point as a souvenir.

* If charisma can permanently add to a type of save, it would surely be versus fear, or whatever type encompasses it in the rulebook. Extensible to demoralization and maybe mind control to an extent.

* Modify if you can or can't use a certain "alignment charged" item. Lawful items will have a minimum requirement to be wielded, while chaotic ones will result in charisma loss.

* In the same way, Lawful beings may have a minimum requirement of charisma to grant you a quest (trades for XP) or other boons. Chaotic beings will be eager to help you, but they will decrease your charisma and/or other evil tradeoffs. 

* Charisma as an HP bar for "corruption" type damage. A character that falls under the dominance of a vampire may get 1d6 charisma damage: then become his thrall (and thus, an NPC) if charisma falls to zero. Working in behalf of a dark lord by decision will also bring your charisma down eventually.

* Modify the scope and power of "cleric type" spells, particularly protective or healing ones.

* Modify the reaction rolls versus Lawful-type monsters and NPCs, as well as morale rolls of everybody under your command.

* to be expanded. Not really sure on where I want to go with this but I like the color of it.

Answered prayers, by Seb McKinnon

 

 

A spell list of pokemon moves

 

One of my long carried over projects is to make a game or D&D adaptation whose entire spell list is taken from pokemon. Basically to take the list of Gen 1 - pokèmon moves (back from when there were 151 of them) and rework them into spells. 

Many of them are explicit on their effects (flamethrower). Some of them might require some explanation, and some of them, which are redundant (Thunder, thunder punch, thunder shock, thunder wave and thunderbolt), can be reworked into more interesting things, so they are the place in which I can get creative with non-combat effects (for example, thunder wave might be used to magnetically seal a gate or whatever)

The great thing about this is that it feels a really new start, not based in the D&D list, to make magic fresher and personal. At the same time it has some constraints that, far from being adverse, are always the greatest helpers when building something great.

Interestingly, it allows for a very elemental-esque approach to magic, with all spells having someone that is vulnerable or resistant to it. One can make monsters based on elements, or trying to figure out to which pokemon element do D&D monsters belong. 

PC casters should not be elemental per se (they are treated like type: normal unless belonging to a specific race, like merfolk or harpies) though they can become elemental under certain circumstances (some spells or items, maybe?). Another good way to "pokemonize" this casters is to allow them to learn only moves of 2 different types, (beyond type:normal). Maybe monks can also work this way, by learning moves of type:fighting.

In the list I linked the moves are labeled as physical (causes physical damage) status (causes status alters, might be sort of magical) or special (more magical in nature). This and the movement type are to be respected a priori, though I might change my mind.

 

I find it very interesting that in the pokemon games there were no Dark and Holy types (though they added Dark shortly afterwards). This sort of paints the world as having no definite law and chaos, just a very strange and wild nature. Also there are oddly specific types like bug, ghost and three types of earth related elements (plant, ground and rock; with steel being added in the later generations). So there is no way to play a cleric in the usual version we know about. If we count them as being "those who drive ghosts away", a quick glance at the chart shows us that only other ghosts are super effective VS ghosts :/

Which element do you feel that a healing spell would belong to?
Which types would you grant to a medusa?

Gameifying Alignment

I was reading the book of Pits and Perils when something inspired me (it happens a lot with that book). Right above the yellow marker:

"A knight is just a lawful fighter". It came into my mind that a cleric is just a lawful magic user too. And in a way, seeing mages as good and evil clerics makes sense if you imagine it in, for example, Lord of the Rings: Gandalf (and every elf too) feels more a cleric to me than anything else. I feel that anything he does is a version of Light, Bless and Turn; while Sauron and Saruman are tainted with evil and that is why their magic feels "different". I don't know where its the key difference. I heard somewhere that elven magic creates, while the shadow magic cannot create and only corrupts. I leave here this article to further reading when I have some time.

Then I started to think deeper into the alignments: How they are always just ignored (I never payed them any attention myself), and I think that it is because A: they have no mechanical weight beyond certain magic weapon restrictions, so why bother? and B: they are metaphysically complex. After all, in real life is hard to define or tell good from evil sometimes.

But inside a game's rules, we can simplify them enough to make them work and make them mean something. These are some guidelines I've come up with:

* There are three alignments: Lawful / Neutral / Chaotic; which are just another words for Good / Neutral / Evil. Lawful is because it follows "god's" law, or whatever benign force you picture. Chaotic is for vampires, undead, demons, etc; but also any corrupted or tainted person, object, race, etc.

* There are no clerics. Instead, a lawful fighter is a Paladin, and a lawful Magic User is a Cleric, as we know them. I dont know what to call lawful thieves, hobbits, elves, etc; but I assure you they exist.

* Mages can only take spells from the MU list or their aligment list (cleric for lawful mages or reversed clerical spells for Chaotic mages). This makes neutral MUs the boring, academic guys who actually have less spell choices.

* Any lawful character can attempt to turn undead. Holy symbols give a bonus to that, or even allow the action to neutral characters (though neutral characters doing that count as level 1 for turning purposes)

* As being Lawful has an upside, it must have a cost or every character would pick it as an alignment. My best idea is that being lawful makes you start with 1/3 of the money (because you're so selfless, bro). Maybe even you have to give some XP money to charity to level up.

* Being Lawful its a status to be kept. It is weird and awkward to have a Judge GM telling you that you are "behaving bad" on a grey area and taking your alignment from you. I don't know if that is a thing that happens. But there must be ways to become a neutral or even evil in-game. I'll think later about this.

* Being Lawful is something you can become mid-game. I think that a good way could be to have it as a prize: remember all those Lawful monsters on the list, that don't seem to have a use? Well, on a good reaction roll, they will give you missions, related to god's will, cosmic struggle or maybe some humble thing (how does it fit on the lawful plan is up to you to imagine). If you succeed on it, you have a chance to become lawful, possibly based off charisma or wisdom to see if it "opens your eyes" or "converts yourself" to the good side. Rescuing princesses, killing evil monsters, recovering lost scions, restoring hopes: that is what lawful guys do.

* Evil characters can happen too, but they are subject to be specially affected by lawful monsters. Apart from evil spells, maybe they could have some area effect of fear, darkness... who knows, maybe at high levels. This is to be decided later. Chaotic thieves are assassins, while chaotic mages represent warlocks and witches.

* Alignment adds + or - 2 to reaction rolls if faced with the same or opposed alignment (neutral characters do not benefit from this)

* The list of things affected by alignment does not end here: magic weapons restricted to alignment, alignment languages, aligned places, groves, rivers, havens, etc. I am starting to think that understanding and exploiting alignments is one of the most powerful keys of the fantasy genre.

was this a case of clerical turning induced by magic object?