So, I wrote a long analysis of how D&D characters get better at doing things as they level (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/09/the-importance-of-levels.html).
Basically, I mention three patterns:
1. You get better as you level up (HP, BAB).
2. You might get better as you level (skill in systems that sue skill points, abilities in 3e, 4e and 5e).
3. You don't get better (abilities in most of TSR-D&D).
What I realized is that I am not so sure of my favorite way of playing anymore. Most systems use pattern 2 for everything, but for D&D pattern 1 is really important because I have a hard time thinking of a character that ONLY improves HP and little else.
Specially, I don't like how your most of your saves don't get better in 5e.
That is why I'm more and more inclined to use something akin to 4e and the half-level bonus which, IMO, is a very "old school" concept IMO, since (from what Gronan et al. have said AFAIK) levels used to be the main gauge for anything a characters does. Not for 5e, but for B/X - like using saving throws for skills, for example.
What is your favorite method? Character gets better at everything, like 4e, few things, like LotFP, or some mixed version like 5e?
Hmm, seems like I saw something somewhere about how one could change the rules to improve saves in 5e.
From the title, I thought you were talking about how 5e improves as characters level.
I have to admit, not since AD&D have I played an edition that works reasonably well at high level, and 5e, while not perfect, at least functions.
Then there are games with no levels, and a few with not even any improvement from what you are. Aside from equiment upgrades and even that may not be a factor.
It should make sense for the setting or genre you are trying to run. You are thinking too much of D&D as a wargame.
What 3.X, Pathfinder, 4e did was treat each level as a package. Similar to a GURPS campaign where you allow the players to spend individual points of XP. But rather have them save up and buy say a 20 point package of attributes, skills,powers, and/or advantages.
In some games, like 4e, the focus is how effective the individual packages were in combat and what role they were to play almost to the exclusion of anything else.
That is pretty much assbackwards. The real question should be what does mean to be a 1st level Fighter in the campaign, a 3rd level Rogue, a 18th level wizard. And it should be a complete picture not just a collections of items and numbers. How would a 18th level mage look to me if I was standing right there.
Then you translate that into the mechanics that goes into each level. And if that means a 7th level Mage gets a bump in hit points and one new spell then that what it means. It will work because it will make sense in terms how the setting or genre works.
I guess something close to 3E, which I run exclusively in Microlite mode. So every level you gain bumps everything, and abilities bump every 3rd level (+1 to one ability). It's rather vanilla, but I like the fact that level=power gain. We don't really invoke rules to train, so perhaps it's "unrealistic," but I feel like players enjoy the tangible advancement, even if it's sorta vanilla.
Quote from: Doom;856172Hmm, seems like I saw something somewhere about how one could change the rules to improve saves in 5e.
From the title, I thought you were talking about how 5e improves as characters level.
I have to admit, not since AD&D have I played an edition that works reasonably well at high level, and 5e, while not perfect, at least functions.
Saves in 5e could certainly be improved... Here is my 2c (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com.br/2015/06/saving-throws-fortitudereflexwill-in.html).
I like 5e, even at high level, but I am having a hard time understanding that thing where the 20th has a lots of HPs but is incapable of doing anything that is not tied to his proficiencies.
Quote from: Omega;856175Then there are games with no levels, and a few with not even any improvement from what you are. Aside from equiment upgrades and even that may not be a factor.
Sure - this "HP bloat" thing is a feature of D&D, almost unique among mainstream RPGs (other than pathfinder and other clones). Even levels are quite rare.
Most RPGs follow pattern 2.
There might be some that follow pattern 3 to everything (no improvement), but I cant think of any, certainly not on the mainstream (say, top 10 rpgs).
Quote from: estar;856195What 3.X, Pathfinder, 4e did was treat each level as a package. Similar to a GURPS campaign where you allow the players to spend individual points of XP. But rather have them save up and buy say a 20 point package of attributes, skills,powers, and/or advantages.
I agree with most of your post, and I like the idea of "level as packages" too.
This detail I'm curious about is how in 4e you get better at, basically, everything, while in 3.x, Pathfinder, you can be a 20th level wizard and is likely that you are almost unable to swim, climb, or sneak around (unless using magic, of course).
Some people HATE that about 4e... Lately, I have been thinking it is a feature, and I miss saving throws getting better in 5e.
Quote from: Omega;856175Then there are games with no levels, and a few with not even any improvement from what you are. Aside from equiment upgrades and even that may not be a factor.
Sure - this "HP bloat" thing is a feature of D&D, almost unique among mainstream RPGs (other than pathfinder and other clones). Even levels are quite rare.
Most RPGs follow pattern 2.
There might be some that follow pattern 3 to everything (no improvement), but I cant think of any, certainly not on the mainstream (say, top 10 rpgs).
Quote from: estar;856195What 3.X, Pathfinder, 4e did was treat each level as a package. Similar to a GURPS campaign where you allow the players to spend individual points of XP. But rather have them save up and buy say a 20 point package of attributes, skills,powers, and/or advantages.
I agree with most of your post, and I like the idea of "level as packages" too.
This detail I'm curious about is how in 4e you get better at, basically, everything, while in 3.x, Pathfinder, you can be a 20th level wizard and is likely that you are almost unable to swim, climb, or sneak around (unless using magic, of course).
Some people HATE that about 4e... Lately, I have been thinking it is a feature.
5e is unique in that saving throws don't necessarily get better, which is something I dislike, although I like 5e better than 3 and 4.
I like 1 and 3, not so keen on 2 which leads to the charop minigame.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;856205There might be some that follow pattern 3 to everything (no improvement), but I cant think of any, certainly not on the mainstream (say, top 10 rpgs).
First thing to my mind is always Traveller, which, in many (but not all) editions has effectively no skill/ability advancement for characters. (Yes, there are rules for it in every edition, but the rules often come down to something like "to improve a skill, take 4 years off from adventuring", which is slow enough that, in most campaigns I've seen, it's effectively equivalent to retiring the character.) They get better gear and more contacts/influence in the setting, but that's about it.
I believe that many Fate-based games shun actual "improvement" for characters, instead just letting you shuffle your skills/aspects/stunts around without ever actually gaining anything new. (e.g., "I have Skill A at 3 and Skill B at 4, so I'll change them to A at 4 and B at 3.") But I don't play Fate, so I could have misunderstood or misremembered.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;856169Specially, I don't like how your most of your saves don't get better in 5e.
A couple of issues with this:
1) Which saves get better as you level is mostly decided by the player. Every class gets periodic chances to raise their stats and the player chooses what to raise.
So if your CHA is still crappy at level 18 it is because you CHOSE to leave it crappy.
2) Many saves are already easily made. DC for effects are kind of on the lower end. If all saves raise automatically then no effect that allows a save would be worth using.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;856205I like 5e, even at high level, but I am having a hard time understanding that thing where the 20th has a lots of HPs but is incapable of doing anything that is not tied to his proficiencies.
Well, that does seem to be the central conceit of the game. You get a certain number of things that you are heroically competent at, and the rest, you are as good as every other person trying to do something they have no background in using natural talent. Once you gain a competence, you suddenly become as good at it as your overall competence factor. Unrealistic? Yes, but no more than gaining a level in fighter and suddenly knowing how to fit horseshoes (1e/2e proficiency system). Roughly as silly as the level concept in general.
QuoteSome people HATE that about 4e... Lately, I have been thinking it is a feature, and I miss saving throws getting better in 5e.
The problem is then spell saving throw DCs also creep upwards (with level of spell, at least in 3e, I really don't know 4e), so it theoretically washes. I think they probably would have stayed with this, if it didn't invite the whole character optimization mini-game thing that people had been complaining about.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;8562362) Many saves are already easily made. DC for effects are kind of on the lower end. If all saves raise automatically then no effect that allows a save would be worth using.
I give my 5e PCs Proficiency in all saves, level 5-8 currently so +3. The players definitely still seem scared of anything that forces a save. Last session 2/3 of them failed the first save vs Gorgon petrification breath and were 1 save off turning to stone.
I guess if they had a save-boost from Paladin, Bard, Inspiration (I rarely grant it) etc then the game would work about right with no Proficiency bonus, but as-is I'm really glad of this house rule, which has several times prevented TPK.
I've gone back to using RAW for monster/NPC saves though, the Warlock is a bit weak already in combat and making his two spells less effective would be punitive.
Looking at the blog post...Interesting though I think the numbering (1a, 2b, etc.) makes it harder to follow.
I think analyzing the progressions further you'd also need to look 'behind the scenes' a bit.
For one thing, levels themselves are earned at different rates in different editions - higher levels being gained faster in 3E through 5E for instance.
For another, the context makes a difference. An sandbox setup makes numerical advancement more meaningful, for instance, while an 'encounterdized' setup can be a numbers treadmill where the expected-CR monster is dishing out proportionally more damage or hitting more often, and so effectively makes advancement in those numbers imaginary. Or In some cases (4E skill challenges, maybe 5E saving throws) actually results in negative advancement.
Another thing I thought of is that some progressions may change for specific classes or special abilities. Maybe spells would be a case of this since many bump up a character from 'no ability' (or low ability) to a level-dependent number - with actual likelihood of owning any given spell increasing with level (indirectly correlated). Or some classes have built in ability increasess (like the AD&D cavalier, or the 3E war hulk) making their stats scale with level. Or 3E has a few abilities where a character can perform a skill check in place of a saving throw (changing them from "1a" to "2a").
Quote from: Exploderwizard;8562361) Which saves get better as you level is mostly decided by the player. Every class gets periodic chances to raise their stats and the player chooses what to raise.
So if your CHA is still crappy at level 18 it is because you CHOSE to leave it crappy.
2) Many saves are already easily made. DC for effects are kind of on the lower end. If all saves raise automatically then no effect that allows a save would be worth using.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;856249Well, that does seem to be the central conceit of the game. You get a certain number of things that you are heroically competent at, and the rest, you are as good as every other person trying to do something they have no background in using natural talent. Once you gain a competence, you suddenly become as good at it as your overall competence factor. Unrealistic? Yes, but no more than gaining a level in fighter and suddenly knowing how to fit horseshoes (1e/2e proficiency system). Roughly as silly as the level concept in general.
I have no problem with this system "per se", realistic or not. What I find odd is that is very non-traditional D&D. Saves get better in all editions but 5e.
This also becomes a problem in 5e because at high levels the characters will fail most of their saves very often, which doesn't happen in low levels, while BD&D is usually the opposite.
Non proficient, high level saves usually suffer from two problems: no proficiency and low abilities. One of this would be enough, IMO, to establish a difference between characters.
At high levels, if the whole party must save, DCs are either so low that some members will always succeed, or so high that some members will always fail.
Granting proficiency in all saves fixes this problems, IMO, and you still have good differentiation through abilities, advantage, etc.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;856395Looking at the blog post...Interesting though I think the numbering (1a, 2b, etc.) makes it harder to follow.
I think analyzing the progressions further you'd also need to look 'behind the scenes' a bit.
For one thing, levels themselves are earned at different rates in different editions - higher levels being gained faster in 3E through 5E for instance.
For another, the context makes a difference. An sandbox setup makes numerical advancement more meaningful, for instance, while an 'encounterdized' setup can be a numbers treadmill where the expected-CR monster is dishing out proportionally more damage or hitting more often, and so effectively makes advancement in those numbers imaginary. Or In some cases (4E skill challenges, maybe 5E saving throws) actually results in negative advancement.
Another thing I thought of is that some progressions may change for specific classes or special abilities. Maybe spells would be a case of this since many bump up a character from 'no ability' (or low ability) to a level-dependent number - with actual likelihood of owning any given spell increasing with level (indirectly correlated). Or some classes have built in ability increasess (like the AD&D cavalier, or the 3E war hulk) making their stats scale with level. Or 3E has a few abilities where a character can perform a skill check in place of a saving throw (changing them from "1a" to "2a").
Thanks! Always looking for feedback to improve my writing.
I agree, there are many ways to go deeper in this analysis.
XP before 3e is an interesting one, not only because it differs by class, but also because XP-per-level it has an interesting progression. The XP needed to next level doubles until level 9... Then it gets easier, but you get less HP per level... Although you can still get extra spells and attacks, etc.
This 3e feature is very interesting too, since some skills will advance way further than saving throws, but STs still maintain a "minimum" resistance.
Quote from: S'mon;856284I give my 5e PCs Proficiency in all saves, level 5-8 currently so +3. The players definitely still seem scared of anything that forces a save. Last session 2/3 of them failed the first save vs Gorgon petrification breath and were 1 save off turning to stone.
I guess if they had a save-boost from Paladin, Bard, Inspiration (I rarely grant it) etc then the game would work about right with no Proficiency bonus, but as-is I'm really glad of this house rule, which has several times prevented TPK.
I think this is a good, simple solution too.
I prefer little or no mechanical improvement, prefering advancement be in-game stuff like equipment, resources, reputation, etc...
Still, I've pretty much made my peace with class/level games... at least the ones with slow advancement that maintain the dangers of low level stuff (a pack of wild dogs should always be a potential threat to an unarmed/unarmored man).
Quote from: Eric Diaz;856433Granting proficiency in all saves fixes this problems, IMO, and you still have good differentiation through abilities, advantage, etc.
Yup, it's a very simple fix to give 5e PCs broad proficiency, and the numbers are small enough it doesn't break anything.
Quote from: Simlasa;856442I prefer little or no mechanical improvement, prefering advancement be in-game stuff like equipment, resources, reputation, etc...
Still, I've pretty much made my peace with class/level games... at least the ones with slow advancement that maintain the dangers of low level stuff (a pack of wild dogs should always be a potential threat to an unarmed/unarmored man).
In my 5e game last night, three 7th-8th level PCs (plus a couple NPCs) were worried about fighting a local lordling and his eight guards - it was the prospect of fighting eight guards that unnerved them. :D I really love this about 5e D&D, you don't really get that in any other edition.
I like characters to improve at everything, but have in-character choices as to their improvement. This creates an issue.
If you have choices as to what you improve as you improve/level up/whatever, then I like those choices to have meaning to the character. They improve X because they're specifically training to get better at X. In the fantasy world I'm running, no-one would be training to improve their perception. I'm not saying it can't be done, it just isn't something that anyone would be looking to do - it's anachronistic. But I like more characters to improve at perception, hence perception (and saves too) improve automatically without the character doing anything.
Hence the game is skill based (gained through XP), but every so often you gain a level purely for the purposes of perception / saves.
I don't see what the problem is with not all saves increasing by level, due to no proficiency with most of the saves (you only get 2 by default).
If you want to increase the saves you're NOT proficient in (based on 5E), just take the "Resilient" feat and BAM... you get proficient in another save and they'll improve.
Generally the save DCs are pretty low anyway, it's sort of baked into the system to be like that and I hated in RPGs like PF where the PCs are virtually invulnerable at 11+ level.
Quote from: danskmacabre;857122If you want to increase the saves you're NOT proficient in, just take the "Resilient" feat and BAM... you get proficient in another save and they'll improve.
- Hi Bob. Not seen you for a few days, been a bit busy working on my Sword play ready for our assault on the Castle of Evil. What have you been up to?
- I'm taking the Resilient Feat.
- You're stealing some feet? Are they magical?
- No, FEAT, with an A. I'm working on being more Resilient.
- Ah, I see. Still having difficulties coping with Jane dumping you for that Paladin. I told you, a warrior shrugs these things off and moves on.
- No I'm err... I err... It's kinda difficult to explain. I'm glad I didn't take the Lucky Feat.
- I've got one of those, a Rabbit's Foot.
- Arrgghh!
Quote from: danskmacabre;857122I don't see what the problem is with not all saves increasing by level, due to no proficiency with most of the saves (you only get 2 by default)...
Generally the save DCs are pretty low anyway, it's sort of baked into the system to be like that and I hated in RPGs like PF where the PCs are virtually invulnerable at 11+ level.
Agreed. 5E characters have some definite strengths and weaknesses, and that, to me, is just fine. I do have some qualms with the holy trinity of saves, DEX, CON, WIS, in that I wish they were spread out a little. However, in the 5E group I'm playing in, I've actually used my sorcerer's Charisma save a couple times, which was a pleasant surprise.
Perhaps we'll see more non-holy-trinity saves whenever we get a 2nd monster manual or fiend folio or whatever. If not, I guess we could always do some minor re-skinning.
Quote from: cranebump;857140Agreed. 5E characters have some definite strengths and weaknesses, and that, to me, is just fine. I do have some qualms with the holy trinity of saves, DEX, CON, WIS, in that I wish they were spread out a little. However, in the 5E group I'm playing in, I've actually used my sorcerer's Charisma save a couple times, which was a pleasant surprise.
Quote from: Saplatt;857146Perhaps we'll see more non-holy-trinity saves whenever we get a 2nd monster manual or fiend folio or whatever. If not, I guess we could always do some minor re-skinning.
If you're looking for a "middle of the road" approach, why not used Reflex/Fortitude/Will?
I've found tremendous wisdom in the original D&D approach.
Character types with particular specialties encourage cooperation and give players 'niches' without hindering them too much. (Total niche security is nigh impossible in any system unless you've got a very small campaign.)
From Homer to Howard, the hero is foremost a warrior par excellence, felling foes for which lesser mortals are no match. The apparatus of monsters of various levels means there's always something tougher even though you can sweep away inferiors in droves.
That sort of thing is harder to justify in other fields, in which competence tends to make the question one not of 'can' but of 'should'. Anyhow, competence at undertakings common to adventurers, from rappelling on a rope to sailing a sloop, tends not to be much of an issue in the fiction that inspired the game.
That fighting power should depend mainly on levels and treasures follows from the nature of the game, as those are what players acquire by dint of play rather than having handed to them by pre-game luck. Turning it into The Shopping Game tends to be counter-productive of the adventure that gave it appeal in the first place.
Hit points and spells are frangible resources. Using them up, thereby losing for a while the main advantages of level, is part of the game.
Any character, whether so weakened or simply low level to begin with, has a chance to survive and succeed. It's just a matter of choosing a strategy that either does not depend on hacking or blasting opposition, or else uses implements of destruction that the environment provides.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857126- Hi Bob. Not seen you for a few days, been a bit busy working on my Sword play ready for our assault on the Castle of Evil. What have you been up to?
- I'm taking the Resilient Feat.
- You're stealing some feet? Are they magical?
- No, FEAT, with an A. I'm working on being more Resilient.
- Ah, I see. Still having difficulties coping with Jane dumping you for that Paladin. I told you, a warrior shrugs these things off and moves on.
- No I'm err... I err... It's kinda difficult to explain. I'm glad I didn't take the Lucky Feat.
- I've got one of those, a Rabbit's Foot.
- Arrgghh!
Sure, you can make anything sound stupid with a player character named Bob. ;)
Bob should be describing the training to improve his resilience rather than the result -- like training with a guru at walking barefoot on hot coals for Constitution, or joining a troupe of acrobats and jugglers and learning from them for Dexterity. Same as you would explain a +2 ability increase.
Quote from: rawma;857247Sure, you can make anything sound stupid with a player character named Bob. ;)
I'm not sure I could, but I'll try!
Quote from: rawma;857247Bob should be describing the training to improve his resilience rather than the result -- like training with a guru at walking barefoot on hot coals for Constitution, or joining a troupe of acrobats and jugglers and learning from them for Dexterity. Same as you would explain a +2 ability increase.
Does anyone ever say "I join a troupe of acrobats and jugglers to improve my dexterity"?
If they do and the feat/improvement in question becomes a popular choice, then suddenly I have a world where it's normal for everyone to go and study with acrobats, which just seems weird as I'd expect only trainee acrobats to do that.
It's a very minor quibble, just an aspect of character improvement that slightly jars with me. It all starts to feel too "character sheet first".
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857272I'm not sure I could, but I'll try!
It's a very minor quibble, just an aspect of character improvement that slightly jars with me. It all starts to feel too "character sheet first".
Seeing as the thread title is "Getting better with level - D&D"
It's a discussion of a perceived weakness in the DnD game mechanics, so I pointed out how IMO, that it's not really. The rules allow you to cover weaknesses in saves.
I would have answered your post earlier, but it seemed sarcastic, negative and generally a snarky comment, so I ignored it as I've got better things to do that reply to negative comments like that, but seeing as someone has already replied, I decided to answer anyway.
FWIW, when I'm ACTUALLY running an RPG, I DO like to put in roleplaying justifications for gaining abilities etc (although you didn't know that and just blindly assumed otherwise, given the tone and meaning of you post).
But this discussion wasn't in that context. It's a game mechanic discussion.
Sure, go ahead and expand it out to cover the actual "Roleplaying" aspect to an RPG, but you might get a more constructive response if you behave less like a jerk about it.
Quote from: danskmacabre;857275I would have answered your post earlier, but it seemed sarcastic, negative and generally a snarky comment, so I ignored it as I've got better things to do that reply to negative comments like that, but seeing as someone has already replied, I decided to answer anyway.
It was simply an attempt at humour.
I said
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857027I like characters to improve at everything, but have in-character choices as to their improvement.
And you said
Quote from: danskmacabre;857122I don't see what the problem is with not all saves increasing by level just take the "Resilient" feat
So I simply made a humorous point that taking the "Resilient" feat wasn't an in-character choice.
Thinking I was "blindly assuming" stuff that I wasn't is itself "blindly assuming" stuff.
Quote from: danskmacabre;857275you might get a more constructive response if you behave less like a jerk about it.
Sorry you didn't find it funny, but that's a bit of an over-reaction. Shrug.
Quote from: Eric Diaz;857187If you're looking for a "middle of the road" approach, why not used Reflex/Fortitude/Will?
I do when I GM with Microlite.:-). Of course, only 3 stats, so everything lines up. But I have to say it makes more sense in that case to have a holy trinity. Hell, that's all you got, stat-wise. The campaign I get to play, though, is 5E. Different group.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857272Does anyone ever say "I join a troupe of acrobats and jugglers to improve my dexterity"?
Depends on the campaign and the GM.
How does Bob learn other feats, skills, tools, languages or anything? Generally to acquire some improvement in your character you study on your own, if it's close to your existing abilities, or with someone who is already good at it. So maybe Bob can just learn from some other player character who already has proficiency with that save or is at least good with that ability--never underestimate the strategic value of a good Training Scene Montage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0391.html).
QuoteIf they do and the feat/improvement in question becomes a popular choice, then suddenly I have a world where it's normal for everyone to go and study with acrobats, which just seems weird as I'd expect only trainee acrobats to do that.
If it became popular, then everyone could just study with any of the people who already learned it. And there doesn't have to be just one way to learn something. I might be inclined to make a player think of something new that could teach the character that feat ("no acrobats you can find want to help you; what else do you try to learn this?"), even if I weren't trying to make the feat harder to get. I don't object to making it harder to get a particular feat by requiring the player character to find a suitable instructor.
QuoteIt's a very minor quibble, just an aspect of character improvement that slightly jars with me. It all starts to feel too "character sheet first".
If Bob can't ever branch out into anything new, then his entire career was mapped out at character creation and I think that's much worse.
Quote from: rawma;857390If Bob can't ever branch out into anything new, then his entire career was mapped out at character creation and I think that's much worse.
I'm talking about abstract options for your character versus concrete ones. Not that there shouldn't be any!
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857406I'm talking about abstract options for your character versus concrete ones. Not that there shouldn't be any!
I don't see why one is abstract and the other concrete.
Quote from: rawma;857525I don't see why one is abstract and the other concrete.
I get better at swordfighting, archery, healing, tracking, athletics is achieved by practicing swordfighting, archery, healing, tracking, athletics, or by training with a sword fighter, archer, healer, tracker, athlete, and it's clear what that entails. They're concrete skills.
Getting better at Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence or Luck are abstract.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857560Getting better at Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence or Luck are abstract.
Luck certainly is.
Strength, I Believe is quite concrete. People go to the gym in real life to weight train and gain strength.
Intelligence would be very difficult to increase in a concrete way by mundane means. One can do mental exercises & puzzles to keep the mind sharp but actually raising IQ is questionable.
Dexterity, while more difficult to improve than strength, is possible with dedicated training.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;857592Strength, I Believe is quite concrete. People go to the gym in real life to weight train and gain strength.
You're right of course about that, I was just listing D&D stats without engaging my brain there!
I wonder what one could do to increase Charisma?
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857601I wonder what one could do to increase Charisma?
Depending on the shortfall: get a groomer/hygienist; Digest Dale Carnegie's
How to Win Friends and Influence People; make a pact with a Devil ...
In the old sense, a charisma is a particular gift from God for serving God.
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857601I wonder what one could do to increase Charisma?
Choose one thing you use Charisma for and practice it. Find a teacher - a PR consultant, Toastmasters, an acting coach - and persuade them to teach you.
The notion that someone can't get better at something through practice is incomprehensible. Do you just try something for 5 minutes and if you're not already good at it then you quit?
Sorry,
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857601I wonder what one could do to increase Charisma?
Is just a throwaway joke about Charisma including physical attractiveness, which Phillip understood:
Quote from: Phillip;857607Depending on the shortfall: get a groomer/hygienist; Digest Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People; make a pact with a Devil ...
Quote from: JoeNuttall;857719just a throwaway joke about Charisma including physical attractiveness, which Phillip understood:
Is abstract versus concrete also a throwaway joke, then?