My Solution to the "Attractiveness" Issue with Charisma


Homebrew and House Rules

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There's been a lot of debate over whether the Charisma score is related to a character's physical appearance, both on forums and in person around tables. In my experience, the problem arises from players arguing two extremes. There is one group that says that Charisma has absolutely nothing to do with appearance, and another group says that Charisma is only a measure of attractiveness. The rational players realize that it's somewhere in between.

First of all, it's silly to say that appearance is completely unrelated to Charisma. Not only is there no mechanic for only physical appearance in the game rules, but there's no denying that attractive people generally get more attention and are often unconsciously predisposed into getting positive reactions from others. Just look at the vast majority of modern celebrities. In fact, the amount of "appearance vs charisma" arguments that have arose around this game alone prove that physical beauty is something that many people judge others on. Sure, some people care about it less than others, and people have different beauty standards, but that's what dice rolls are for.

On the other hand, physical appearance is absolutely not the only component of Charisma. Just like the rulebook states, it is only one factor among others such as force of personality and ability to lead. But while a plain-looking but gregarious bard may be more charismatic overall than a beautiful but shy druid, it is true that the bard would be even more charismatic if he or she was as attractive as the druid.

The final issue is that appearance has a few components that don't match up with the rest of the stat. Some things, such as sorcerer spellcasting, have no reason to have any relation to appearance. Also, members of the opposite sex (or homosexuals of the same sex) will probably care more about appearance than others. So enough rambling, this is the actual change to represent characters who are attractive enough for it to contribute to their Charisma score:

The Actual Houserule: If you have 14 or more Charisma, you can choose to add the "Attractive" modifier. If you do, you gain a +2 bonus on Charisma ability checks and Charisma-based skills against anyone who is attracted to your race and sex (which is most player races and possibly some monster races), as well as +2 to the DC of your charm spells against these individuals. You gain a -1 penalty on charm DCs and checks against anyone else. If you do not choose this modifier, your Charisma score is unchanged. At the DM's discretion, you may want to make the modifiers more extreme for very high Charisma scores.

What to you think about this houserule? Have you addressed this issue at your table in any way?


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Eh, it's an okay rule, I think. I personally just let people describe their characters however they choose. Beauty is subjective and in the eye of the [redacted for copyright violations]. Charisma is a mental skill you can hone. You can use your Charisma to make people see you as beautiful, but personal appearance is basically a crapshoot related to physical health.

I wouldn't mind if the game just added a skill called "Attractiveness" that was based on your Charisma, though. It would mark your ability to present yourself in terms of fashion and color, in terms of taking care of your body, and in terms of personal magnetism. Not sure what it would be used for, but it would make sense in this format.

Oh, wait. I basically just described Disguise, Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Perform.

Yeah, we really don't need to codify "beauty" as an ingame mechanic. But this is a good stab at it.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charisma is a mental ability score. The only physical aspect of it is how you present yourself.

It wouldn't be hard to just say that if an NPC finds you attractive, you get a +2 circumstance bonus to Diplomacy checks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*Thinks about players constantly asking the GM if people think their character is pretty*

...

Hm.

The Exchange

Rolling my Cha modifier

Sovereign Court

Do undead become more attractive if they get a charisma increase?


It would be hard to make a game mechanic to remedy this concern but the OP's idea is not half bad.

Certainly there is something to this concern for RP purposes. Beauty has a subjective component (as you say this is what dice rolls are for) but any quick look at models from around the world will see some commonalities, many of them quantifiable.

Beautiful people really do get treated significantly better (on average) than others. But then so do the very wealthy and the otherwise very famous.

Another way would be to create a feat for that. Or build it into the PC's background.

I prefer letting the player decide (or not) if their PC is attractive and handle it through RP as needed. Unless they wanted to play a character of Aphrodite-like beauty I'd just leave it to RP and forget the mechanic.*

* full disclosure - I'm a 5e fan so there is that bias on my part; to let as little game mechanic into the campaign as I can possibly get away with


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Charisma is more about "appearance" than it is about being attractive. It never mentions attractiveness. That is just an assumption people make. James Jacobs explained more as how memorable your appearance is.

PRD wrote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Therefore no houserule is needed since it is a non-problem/issue.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

People have been arguing about this since Basic D+D. It wasn't settled when TSR added and then removed the Comeliness attribute.

You're not going to undo a half century with a forum post.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I remember a homebrew rule I read once where a character had an appearance Ability score (like a seventh separate Ability score). They figured it was half your CHA + half the score your target found attractive. So for instance if you take the following ability scores:

STR 18
DEX 14
CON 14
INT 8
WIS 14
CHA 10

Your appearance score here would be a 14 for someone attracted to strength, but only a 9 for someone attracted to intelligence.

I found it an interesting idea but doubt there is anyone who would want a seventh stat that varied between six numbers. Might work if it was by race. Orcs like strength, dwarves like wisdom. Still a huge hassle to determine if you're hot or not...

I feel someone can describe their character however they like. If they want to dump stat their charisma but say that their character is still attractive then that's their call. I've meet plenty of people I find attractive but can't stand to talk to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

People have been arguing about this since Basic D+D. It wasn't settled when TSR added and then removed the Comeliness attribute.

You're not going to undo a half century with a forum post.

True indeed.

Personally, I always use Charisma as a purely mental stat covering such nebulous things as self identity, general likeability, and pure charm. Much like intelligence and Wisdom, there is so much crossover in the mental characteristics category anyway that it's often hard to define any of them. Wisdom is (by dictionary) a Love of Knowledge, and by RPG more of a common sense stat. (the red box called intelligence the ability to identify those drops of water coming from the sky as rain and Wisdom as the knowledge that you should probably get out of it. Paraphrased, of course). Pathfinder describes victims of Charisma loss as becoming more withdrawn and less outgoing, traits that could apply more to a bravery drain than Charisma.

And add to that the fact that what appeals to one race may not appeal to another, let alone to individuals. Sure, that dragon's crest and horns look impressive and regal like a crown to say the standard humanoid, but to the other dragons, maybe they view it as a birth defect to have horns like a prey species? Orcs are known to like scars, but the unscarred high Charisma sorcerer is somehow prettier to them than the sliced up face of an old warrior?

By the opposite end of things sometimes in modules you have to simplify things (the whoozit of wherever flirts with the highest Charisma because they are the prettiest). The comeliness stat was... an idea. It was also a huge mess. First Ed. AD&D had Charisma modified by com, com modified by Cha, and all sorts of specifics for multiple situations. (racial modifiers because dwarves hated elves and vice versa, etc...) Of course, this was also an era when the stat caps were different for male and female characters...

Summary: It's a mess, it's going to be a mess,best play it fast and loose rather than get caught up in the morass.


In another thread, it was mentioned that CHA denotes magnitude, not direction. Hags, for example, are even stated in the text itself to be ugly, but have a positive cha score.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Society Subscriber

OH, and I find your rule interesting. I like how it's optional but the +2 save DC may be game breaking for an enchantment focused character, especially if you are running a game where most of the villains are not monstrous creatures. And your players might cry foul if you give it to one of their enemies (as any succubus or nymph would have this ability).

Maybe just a +1/-1 trade off? I think there is a trait that gives you something like that.

Still, I appreciate you sharing your approach to this issue!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll never understand the desire to codify subjective things. This should be solely in the realm of role play and character development.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
PRD wrote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Appearance can be more of a "how you keep yourself" thing. Someone with conventionally "good bone structure", "symmetry", and all those arbitrary measurements can still have a bad appearance if they lack good posture, cleanliness, and a complimentary wardrobe. Even someone regarded as beautiful can have a bad appearance—they might look foolish due to an absurd outfit, for instance. They'd still look pretty, but their appearance would be poor.

In other words, "appearance" is about a lot more than simple "beauty". It's quite literally about how you appear. Unattractive people can have great appearances. Consider all the talk about the "presidential look" we've had lately—putting aside the precise context, people like Abraham Lincoln might not have been terribly beautiful, but they did look impressive.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've always just allowed players to choose if their character is ugly, average, or beautiful.

If you're average, there are no modifiers. If you're beautiful, you get a +2 appearance bonus on Diplomacy and -2 on Intimidate. The ugly modifiers are the exact opposite: +2 on Intimidate and -2 Diplomacy.

The fun part is that sometimes these bonuses are negated or even reversed. Trying to negotiate with the goblin chieftain? Good luck, pretty-boy elf. He's only going to listen to your companion, the butt-ugly half-orc!

Using this really simple system has yielded wonderful results in my game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You know what they about them female sorcerers with them high charisma's XD


4 people marked this as a favorite.

They are a standard optimized build?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder."

When Charisma says it measures your appearance (among other things), that is a matter of quantity, not quality. The quality of the appearance is subjective. Whether a person is beautiful, ugly, intimidating, imposing, demure, or any other qualitative description might be applied is subjective to the viewer. But, whatever qualifier applies, Charisma measures how strongly you present that qualifier. If someone finds you attractive, then high Charisma means they find you very attractive while low Charisma means they find you just a little bit attractive; you're still attractive no matter how high or low your Charisma goes. In other words, Charisma determines only how much, not what kind. You need high Charisma in order to be incredibly beautiful but you also need high Charisma in order to be incredibly ugly.

Charisma is more about confidence than anything else. Confident people have certain body language, expressions, tone of voice, etc. and they act with certainty. High Charisma means you know your physical appearance and you can flaunt it to maximum effect. Low Charisma means you lack confidence and will have body language, expression, tone, lack of certainty, etc. that causes you to have less of an effect. Even physical defects depend on your attitude towards them. One feat that gives you a scar causes a penalty to certain Cha-based skills because it is a physical reminder of a time when you failed; it damaged your confidence a little bit. But another feat that gives you a scar causes a bonus to certain Cha-based skills because it is a reminder of a time when you avoided failure by just ever so slightly; you pulled through in a pinch and succeeded and have this awesome scar that is a well-earned source of pride.

So the real solution to the problem is about properly understanding the Charisma attribute and how it provides a quantitative metric and is not a slider with "ugly" on the left and "beautiful" on the right. The "ugly" and "beautiful" are in a drop-down menu (along with all other appearance descriptors) and Charisma is a slider going from "less <whatever>" to "more <whatever>".


Our group has always just gone with Charisma being generally unrelated to attractiveness. Certainly, we've had plenty of high-Charisma/extremely-attractive characters, but we've also had high-Charisma/ugly characters and low-Charisma/attractive characters.

A character (or person) can very easily be stunningly beautiful, and manage to be dull, vapid, and banal. We've had players experiment with this type of character.

On the flip side, I'll be playing an Oracle in our upcoming Strange Aeons campaign with the Wasting and Shattered Psyche curses, so despite a powerful presence and force of personality, he's hideous to gaze upon and quite mad.

I've never felt the need to limit beauty or ugliness to a stat.


To go totally off the rails here, this makes me think about Cyberpunk. The game's motto being "style over substance", it's mechanics have a wardrobe skill worked into the game that affects your ability to influence others.

A "wardrobe" skill, or a mechanic that added bonuses to diplomacy, intimidate, bluff, etc. based on the kind of clothes worn, or even minor magical items that are articles of clothing with bonuses to certain social skills could be interesting.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
PRD wrote:
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Appearance can be more of a "how you keep yourself" thing. Someone with conventionally "good bone structure", "symmetry", and all those arbitrary measurements can still have a bad appearance if they lack good posture, cleanliness, and a complimentary wardrobe. Even someone regarded as beautiful can have a bad appearance—they might look foolish due to an absurd outfit, for instance. They'd still look pretty, but their appearance would be poor.

In other words, "appearance" is about a lot more than simple "beauty". It's quite literally about how you appear. Unattractive people can have great appearances. Consider all the talk about the "presidential look" we've had lately—putting aside the precise context, people like Abraham Lincoln might not have been terribly beautiful, but they did look impressive.

I don't know if you were trying to agree or disagree, but your statement supports what I was trying to say.


Oh, sorry, I didn't read your post thoroughly. That quote tends to be brought up to connect Charisma to attractiveness. I should've read you more carefully. My bad.


Eh, we just use Comeliness if/when anyone wants to have an appearance score. It's worked for us.


The reason to figure out a solution to this is the players who dump charisma (which often makes sense to do), but absolutely can't imagine playing an ugly character. So, they decide that they can get charisma as an average between appearance and agreeability. And of course, from that 11 charisma, they choose an 18 appearance and a 3 agreeability - and then act this way. And say "I am just playing my character." Blergh.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Oh, sorry, I didn't read your post thoroughly. That quote tends to be brought up to connect Charisma to attractiveness. I should've read you more carefully. My bad.

I've done it before also. No worries. <thumbs up>


Sissyl wrote:
The reason to figure out a solution to this is the players who dump charisma (which often makes sense to do), but absolutely can't imagine playing an ugly character. So, they decide that they can get charisma as an average between appearance and agreeability. And of course, from that 11 charisma, they choose an 18 appearance and a 3 agreeability - and then act this way. And say "I am just playing my character." Blergh.

I guess if they think they have to average out everything mentioned under that ability score it would be an issue. What I think we need is something saying you don't have to act a certain way as a trade off to appearing a certain way. Their characters can be good looking, not be socially inept, and still not be captivating for other reasons.

PS: I didn't know this was a large issue, but I guess I can preemptively come up with some explainer text if someone comes into my group who has this idea.


17 people marked this as a favorite.

Whenever someone brings up the Charisma vs. Physical Beauty issue to me, I just remind them that I'm a horrible tentacle monster and I have 34 Charisma. Then they usually die in my Unspeakable Presence...

My Unspeakably Sexy Presence...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Stupid sexy Cthulhu...


**Smitten**


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Great Old One, Cthulhu wrote:

Whenever someone brings up the Charisma vs. Physical Beauty issue to me, I just remind them that I'm a horrible tentacle monster and I have 34 Charisma. Then they usually die in my Unspeakable Presence...

My Unspeakably Sexy Presence...

To be fair, there's a big market for tentacle hentai.


Kazaan wrote:
Great Old One, Cthulhu wrote:

Whenever someone brings up the Charisma vs. Physical Beauty issue to me, I just remind them that I'm a horrible tentacle monster and I have 34 Charisma. Then they usually die in my Unspeakable Presence...

My Unspeakably Sexy Presence...

To be fair, there's a big market for tentacle hentai.

This made my day lol


Here's the thing.

Physical beauty =/= actual sexiness.

Real World Example:
Cleopatra, infamous for her charm and ability to seduce the most powerful men of Rome, was not particularly physically attractive. She was actually fairly homely. But she knew how to work what she had, and so she could seduce (almost) anyone she wanted to.

Cleopatra is an example of a character who wasn't very physically beautiful but had a massive Charisma score. And, because of her Charisma score, she was Sexy Hot.

So yes, Charisma = hotness... but it doesn't equal physical beauty.

--

As to the Cthuhlu has a Charisma 34 thing - Cthuhlu is extremely powerful and confident. Even looking like he does, there are mortals willing to bow to him, to serve him, to please him. Cthuhlu seduces people constantly - just not physically. He seduces them so that they literally WORSHIP him.

So yes, Cthuhlu is incredibly sexy. All the gods are - even the ugly ones.

And, seriously, if Cthuhlu cared about physical affection and didn't destroy those who looked upon him, he could have beautiful cultists lining up to be chained to him while wearing golden bikinis.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sawyer Lachance 971 wrote:
The rational players realize that it's somewhere in between.

That's a bit pretentious, don't you think, to just declare people who have a different opinion than you fundamentally irrational?

How am I supposed to take any houserule you suggest seriously when you open your post with "Oh if you disagree with me I think you're mentally unstable"?

Quote:
When Charisma says it measures your appearance (among other things), that is a matter of quantity, not quality. The quality of the appearance is subjective. Whether a person is beautiful, ugly, intimidating, imposing, demure, or any other qualitative description might be applied is subjective to the viewer. But, whatever qualifier applies, Charisma measures how strongly you present that qualifier.

This is a pretty common counter-argument I see to the "But Cthulhu's charisma" position.

But on the other hand there are also creatures that have pretty much nothing remarkable about their appearance and still leverage charisma scores.

I think it's easier to just say that Charisma is an amalagam of ideas and how you combine them is up to the character in question.


I'd just like to thank everyone for saying how attractive they think I am. I'm flattered, really.

But seriously ...

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I'll never understand the desire to codify subjective things. This should be solely in the realm of role play and character development.

... This.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If you're attached to the idea of some mechanic for physical attractiveness, how about something simple that uses an existing game mechanic?

Attractive (Social Trait)
You are conventionally attractive, and as a result have an easier time in lots of social situations. You gain a +1 trait bonus to Bluff and Diplomacy rolls made against those who might be attracted to you. This bonus increases to +2 if you're attempting to seduce them.


please flip through any bestiary and then find the creatures with the highest CHA. 50/50 or better will be hideous.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

People have been arguing about this since Basic D+D. It wasn't settled when TSR added and then removed the Comeliness attribute.

You're not going to undo a half century with a forum post.

For a while, 1st Edition AD&D also had some creatures having negative Charisma, to represent something really hideous in a way that you can't stop paying attention to. Not sure if this carried over into 2nd Edition, but it was definitely gone by 3rd Edition.


Rename Charisma to Presence. Seriously, a rename can change the entire meaning of it. Your Presence doesn't care about how hot you are, it simply demands the attention of those around you, making you fascinating, intriguing, and giving you a greater chance to manipulate them.
Then you have a trait/feat that gives bonuses for appearance.
Here are two completely 0-value (for every bonus, an equal penalty) traits/feats
Attractive: +2 to diplomacy checks against people who find your race and sex attractive, but you have a -2 versus those who are jealous of your looks. [Story] You may also find it harder to pass beneath the attention of others without a disguise check.
Hideous: +2 to Intimidate checks when dealing with people who find your appearance disturbing, but you also take a -2 to diplomacy attempts against them. [story] You might need a disguise kit to interact without fear, and some people may decide that no matter what you or do, you are a truly gentle giant, making it impossible for you to intimidate them.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

0-value traits and feats are ridiculous. You're expending a limited resource, your result should be distinctly better than not having it. [Twice as much so for a feat as for a trait.]


Create Mr. Pitt wrote:
I'll never understand the desire to codify subjective things. This should be solely in the realm of role play and character development.

I'm with you. What's the point the debate, anyways?


Solution:
One blood-drenched murder hobo is treated like any other blood-drenched murder hobo?
NO! I'm BEAUTIFUL!!!! And people LOVE ME!!! Not like YOU slobbering filth!!!


kyrt-ryder wrote:
0-value traits and feats are ridiculous. You're expending a limited resource, your result should be distinctly better than not having it. [Twice as much so for a feat as for a trait.]

Apologies - I personally run 0-values as free-ish. You get a limited number of them, but they don't take up trait or feat slots.


Zelgadas Greyward wrote:

Here's the thing.

Physical beauty =/= actual sexiness.

Real World Example:
Cleopatra, infamous for her charm and ability to seduce the most powerful men of Rome, was not particularly physically attractive. She was actually fairly homely. But she knew how to work what she had, and so she could seduce (almost) anyone she wanted to.

Cleopatra is an example of a character who wasn't very physically beautiful but had a massive Charisma score. And, because of her Charisma score, she was Sexy Hot.

So yes, Charisma = hotness... but it doesn't equal physical beauty.

My favorite example is Mikael Blomkvist, from Girl with a Dragon Tatoo. From his description, he's nothing really to write home about- The sweedish movie makes him look like a potato, while the comic makes him look kinda average.

But people love him, because he's just polite, well mannered, uncreepy, relaxed, and caring. Though I don't particularly like how often, he frequently manages to either seduce or get seduced. In one book, less than four women, One of which shuns nearly all human contact the same way oil shuns water. Quite plausibly more off-page.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
RustedKitsune wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
0-value traits and feats are ridiculous. You're expending a limited resource, your result should be distinctly better than not having it. [Twice as much so for a feat as for a trait.]
Apologies - I personally run 0-values as free-ish. You get a limited number of them, but they don't take up trait or feat slots.

Ah, that changes things a bit since they're in their own separate resource pool. Very cool.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i'm just getting into this, but i feel charisma isn't straight attractiveness but does effect your appearance. It's basically how much they stand out, like your height, noticeable features, etc. An extremely ugly hag still has high charisma because they stand out so much for instance, gives them that bonus on intimidate checks.

The Tall dark knight that can put a chill in your bones with a glance, all the way to a paladin with a soft face that gives him that edge in diplomacy.

but it;s definitely not plain physical either.


'Stand out' is an acceptable way to have Cha influence appearance.

I prefer making it 100% mental, but the level of 'noticable-ness' appearance-wise being cha based is something I'm cool with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Conservative Anklebiter wrote:
You know what they about them female sorcerers with them high charisma's XD

It's all true!

ALL of it!


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:

'Stand out' is an acceptable way to have Cha influence appearance.

I prefer making it 100% mental, but the level of 'noticable-ness' appearance-wise being cha based is something I'm cool with.

well I do believe part of standing out is mental, being assertive and concise with how you present yourself is a fairly obvious and simply example of it being entirely mental. I'm just saying sometimes physical stuff does make an impression.

I just don't believe it's ever 100% physical.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
RustedKitsune wrote:

Rename Charisma to Presence. Seriously, a rename can change the entire meaning of it. Your Presence doesn't care about how hot you are, it simply demands the attention of those around you, making you fascinating, intriguing, and giving you a greater chance to manipulate them.

Then you have a trait/feat that gives bonuses for appearance.
Here are two completely 0-value (for every bonus, an equal penalty) traits/feats
Attractive: +2 to diplomacy checks against people who find your race and sex attractive, but you have a -2 versus those who are jealous of your looks. [Story] You may also find it harder to pass beneath the attention of others without a disguise check.
Hideous: +2 to Intimidate checks when dealing with people who find your appearance disturbing, but you also take a -2 to diplomacy attempts against them. [story] You might need a disguise kit to interact without fear, and some people may decide that no matter what you or do, you are a truly gentle giant, making it impossible for you to intimidate them.

So if i were to rename the stats I would name them after measurable things and not nebulous mental things that can shape personality.

Intelligence would become Memory (covering your ability to process information as well, not just retaining it, as in putting 2 and 2 together to make 4)

Wisdom would become Mental reflexes, or some other word I could use to accurately describe it, but it would record how quickly you can think about the world around you. Your reaction time and ability to counter mental attacks before they can effect you, this slides off into covering your perception and sense skills by making sure you're less likely to not be paying attention, etc.

Charisma would become your force of will, which is actually palpable in pathfinder worlds. People are often drawn to people with strong wills, they can also be easily manipulated by them and they also are less likely to be manipulated in return.

It covers everything very easily and doesn't get hung up on anything I believe, though there isn't any reason to really go through all of that.

Though it it's simplest, i'd rename all the physical stats to physical X with a little P. in front of them and

Int into M. Consitution
Wis into M. Dexterity
Cha into M. Strength

that also fits pretty well.

1 to 50 of 82 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / My Solution to the "Attractiveness" Issue with Charisma All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.