There has been some discussion about the effects of a low charisma score on a character in several threads. There has been calls for it's own thread, so here it is. Please note that the discussion has even been heated at times, so please pay extra attention to being polite, or skip this thread.
Charisma in Pathfinder has a lot falling under it: "Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance" It is perhaps the most intangible of all the stats but still a major defining attribute of a characters persona.
However Charisma score in game, has maybe the least impact in the actual rules mechanics, that is to say, dice rolls. If a class ability does not directly benefit from charisma, players may decide to 'dump' the charisma, in order to free points to boost stats that give more mechanical benefits. That is all fine and well, a chracter may have strenghts and weaknesses whereever the player wishes, but then sometimes, players attempt to minimize even those weaknesses in baseless, unbalanced ways.
Because charisma includes several aspects, players sometimes might suggest that if their character is better at some of those and worse at some of those it will balance out as a charisma score median of those. This might seem reasonable but when done in specific ways, it will end up giving undeserved advantages to the character, because the game system is not equipped to handle that.
Here is an example. A player might suggest that her low charisma character is in fact good looking and carries itself well but the low charisma is due to it being quiet, introverted and having a stutter. While these would propably fall under the charisma there is a problem. Whatever falls under charisma, I think most people would agree that it comprises of both visual and auditory output. In this example, the player has basically contributed the character's low charisma to auditory output. However, in character interaction, most rolls are done based on auditory output and the visual output simply exists. Player has now improved her characters visual output above the charisma while not getting any additional penalty to the auditory. And now he can totally compensate the low charisma by either keeping quiet or adding skill points to the skills used in auditory interaction. This would be unbalanced and unfair to players who actually invest in a high charisma.
As always, when the rules are unable to accommodate things; enter the GM. So, GM of the world, what is the solution? There might be many, but I'll give one suggestion. If a player wishes her character to be below her charisma with auditory output and above with visual, you could give him additional -2 to all auditory interaction and +2 to all visual interaction. Like if he just stands there looking intimidating, you would give him a +2 circumstance bonus but if the intimidation requires talking he would instead receive a -2.
Also as a final note, not everything that charisma does, falls under some skill or class ability. From the book:
You apply your character’s Charisma modifier to:
• Bluff, Diplomacy, Disguise, Handle Animal, Intimidate,
Perform, and Use Magic Device checks.
• Checks that represent attempts to influence others.
• Channel energy DCs for clerics and paladins attempting
to harm undead foes.
|
However Charisma score in game, has maybe the least impact in the actual rules mechanics, that is to say, dice rolls. If a class ability does not directly benefit from charisma, players may decide to 'dump' the charisma, in order to free points to boost stats that give more mechanical benefits. That is all fine and well, a chracter may have strenghts and weaknesses whereever the player wishes, but then sometimes, players attempt to minimize even those weaknesses in baseless, unbalanced ways.
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, that is, putting skill points into diplomacy and bluff to eventually eliminate the negative charisma modifier, then this is neither baseless nor unbalanced. In fact, it is very much a part of the pathfinder rules and should be fully expected from the growth of a character.
If your problem is that someone wants a high diplomacy character and has achieved it through means other than charisma, then you should write a house rule that forbids skill points into skills for which a character has a negative modifier.
|
I disagree (politely) with your suggestion. I believe that it is the player's responsibility to role-play his/her character appropriately. I suggest that if the player fails in the GMs opinion in doing this then the GM should merely run the NPCs as they "would" perceive the character...
Example:
If a character has a charisma of 5 (I actually have a dwarf who has this) and the player is role-playing the character with anything but the very slightest amount of grace the NPCs would merely discount it into something less graceful.
To be honest though i've never had this occur so my opinion may not be legitimate.
I don't like the idea of additional penalties when the game already considers the ability score.
That is all fine and well, a chracter may have strenghts and weaknesses whereever the player wishes, but then sometimes, players attempt to minimize even those weaknesses in baseless, unbalanced ways.If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, that is, putting skill points into diplomacy and bluff to eventually eliminate the negative charisma modifier, then this is neither baseless nor unbalanced. In fact, it is very much a part of the pathfinder rules and should be fully expected from the growth of a character.
If your problem is that someone wants a high diplomacy character and has achieved it through means other than charisma, then you should write a house rule that forbids skill points into skills for which a character has a negative modifier.
Oh no no not at all. Please read the example. It's not about upping diplomacy and bluff, but it's about upping your looks and presence without merit.
|
If you're talking about what I think you're talking about, that is, putting skill points into diplomacy and bluff to eventually eliminate the negative charisma modifier, then this is neither baseless nor unbalanced. In fact, it is very much a part of the pathfinder rules and should be fully expected from the growth of a character.However Charisma score in game, has maybe the least impact in the actual rules mechanics, that is to say, dice rolls. If a class ability does not directly benefit from charisma, players may decide to 'dump' the charisma, in order to free points to boost stats that give more mechanical benefits. That is all fine and well, a chracter may have strenghts and weaknesses whereever the player wishes, but then sometimes, players attempt to minimize even those weaknesses in baseless, unbalanced ways.
That's not my reading of the OP, but I agree with the conclusion: the best way to represent a character who's reasonably effective with some aspects of Charisma but overall has a low score is by adding skills, traits and perhaps also feats that benefit those aspects.
Yes, this is costly and discouraging, if the player is only interested in spending game resources on hitting things and wants to get his social skills for free.
I disagree (politely) with your suggestion. I believe that it is the player's responsibility to role-play his/her character appropriately. I suggest that if the player fails in the GMs opinion in doing this then the GM should merely run the NPCs as they "would" perceive the character...
Example:
If a character has a charisma of 5 (I actually have a dwarf who has this) and the player is role-playing the character with anything but the very slightest amount of grace the NPCs would merely discount it into something less graceful.
To be honest though i've never had this occur so my opinion may not be legitimate.
I don't like the idea of additional penalties when the game already considers the ability score.
Neither do I, and a low CHA carries with it a negative modifier. Just make sure that gets factored in and the game takes care of itself. At low levels, the character has a hard time, despite skill ranks. At mid-levels, things get it easier (but still not lobbying for the Party Face position.) At higher levels, the low-stat is pretty well covered up for. And what's wrong with that?
I disagree (politely) with your suggestion. I believe that it is the player's responsibility to role-play his/her character appropriately. I suggest that if the player fails in the GMs opinion in doing this then the GM should merely run the NPCs as they "would" perceive the character...
Example:
If a character has a charisma of 5 (I actually have a dwarf who has this) and the player is role-playing the character with anything but the very slightest amount of grace the NPCs would merely discount it into something less graceful.
To be honest though i've never had this occur so my opinion may not be legitimate.
I don't like the idea of additional penalties when the game already considers the ability score.
Well I actually agree with you. I wasn't suggesting imposing bonuses and penalties. But if the player wants to roleplay some aspects of her character above the charisma score I was trying to offer a way she could do it by applying balancing penalties to other aspects. If a player sees her character as being on charisma level in every aspect, as the game mechanics suppose, there is no problem.
Neither do I, and a low CHA carries with it a negative modifier. Just make sure that gets factored in and the game takes care of itself. At low levels, the character has a hard time, despite skill ranks. At mid-levels, things get it easier (but still not lobbying for the Party Face position.) At higher levels, the low-stat is pretty well covered up for. And what's wrong with that?I disagree (politely) with your suggestion. I believe that it is the player's responsibility to role-play his/her character appropriately. I suggest that if the player fails in the GMs opinion in doing this then the GM should merely run the NPCs as they "would" perceive the character...
Example:
If a character has a charisma of 5 (I actually have a dwarf who has this) and the player is role-playing the character with anything but the very slightest amount of grace the NPCs would merely discount it into something less graceful.
To be honest though i've never had this occur so my opinion may not be legitimate.
I don't like the idea of additional penalties when the game already considers the ability score.
But if a player wants some aspects of her character to be above the charisma score, the the penalty would not apply to them right? And if the penalty would apply, then those aspects wouldn't be above after all, right?
But if a player wants some aspects of her character to be above the charisma score, the the penalty would not apply to them right? And if the penalty would apply, then those aspects wouldn't be above after all, right?
huh?
The only way a player can adapt to a -mod attribute, such as CHA, is through the social skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate. If they're Class Skills, the poor modifier then becomes much easier to overcome. If we're not talking Class Skills, well, it's gonna take a level or two before things to start to payoff.
For the player who wants to have a character that is amazingly beautiful, but still have Charisma that is a dump stat, what I'd explain is that it's perfectly fine to do that, but what the character is doing to convey that dump stat is an abstract layer of character behavior that is unspoken within the game system itself.The character might be gorgeous, but she farts, or picks her nose, a vacant state, or a constant frown. She's off putting to be around in some way that is inherent. When she does speak she speaks in a way that is uncompelling, despite whatever the player may actually say.
Indeed but being beautiful is often an advantage, is it not? If there's a beauty contest, the character might win. So infact she would have a distinct bonus over her charisma in some cases. But in other cases still only retain the normal charisma penalty.
But yes if she'd pick her nose and scratch her bum and have her clothes on wrong on the stage constantly, she wouldn't win nevertheless. But then her beauty would practically never give an advantage, so I'd let that slide also.
Indeed but being beautiful is often an advantage, is it not? If there's a beauty contest, the character might win.
Sure she could, right up until she opens her mouth and subsequently rolls poorly on her Diplomacy.
Generally speaking, CHA doesn't come into play until you have opened your mouth and interacted with NPCs. Well, I should say that's always been my take on it...
But if a player wants some aspects of her character to be above the charisma score, the the penalty would not apply to them right? And if the penalty would apply, then those aspects wouldn't be above after all, right?huh?
The only way a player can adapt to a -mod attribute, such as CHA, is through the social skills like Diplomacy and Intimidate. If they're Class Skills, the poor modifier then becomes much easier to overcome. If we're not talking Class Skills, well, it's gonna take a level or two before things to start to payoff.
Oh I mean like if the character looks good beyond her charisma. There is no roll for it but it gives a distinct advantage often. Yet other aspects still receive only the normal penalty from the charisma.
Oh I mean like if the character looks good beyond her charisma.
So for you, CHA is mainly a measure of physical beauty?
Generally speaking, CHA doesn't come into play until you have opened your mouth and interacted with NPCs. Well, I should say that's always been my take on it...
Welll. In that case players could have their characters look and act regardless of charisma I suppose. But even by rollplaying charisma does affect without speech. Like in Intimidate, Perform or Disguise.
Oh I mean like if the character looks good beyond her charisma.So for you, CHA is mainly a measure of physical beauty?
No for me half of CHA is visual output. Beauty would be a part of it often.
Welll. In that case players could have their characters look and act regardless of charisma I suppose. But even by rollplaying charisma does affect without speech. Like in Intimidate, Perform or Disguise.
Y'know, the intimidating stare, however cinematic, would get really old after awhile.
You mention Perform, so I guess you're thinking someone's gonna abuse the possibilities as a Mime. Regardless, I figure their low CHA will hurt them in the lively facial expression department...
Disguise - if your target is mute, you might have something here.
Where are you going with this, Lazzo?
No for me half of CHA is visual output. Beauty would be a part of it often.Oh I mean like if the character looks good beyond her charisma.So for you, CHA is mainly a measure of physical beauty?
Okay, so what about the other factors of CHA. What are they worth?
Welll. In that case players could have their characters look and act regardless of charisma I suppose. But even by rollplaying charisma does affect without speech. Like in Intimidate, Perform or Disguise.Y'know, the intimidating stare, however cinematic, would get really old after awhile.
You mention Perform, so I guess you're thinking someone's gonna abuse the possibilities as a Mime. Regardless, I figure their low CHA will hurt them in the lively facial expression department...
Disguise - if your target is mute, you might have something here.
Where are you going with this, Lazzo?
I ment those skills can be used without speech. And when so, charisma still affects them. So charisma does affect things without speech.
I ment those skills can be used without speech. And when so, charisma still affects them. So charisma does affect things without speech.
Sure it does, because it's more than just looks. I'm glad we agree on that.
|
|
No for me half of CHA is visual output. Beauty would be a part of it often.
The problem with attributing looks to "half" of charisma, is that the skills just don't seem to match up. Why should someone who's incredibly beautiful be more intimidating than the big ugly guy with a scar all the way up his face and only half a nose?
Furthermore, a wand doesn't care how beautiful you are. And personally, I think incredible beauty would make it more difficult to effectively disguise one's self.
I can call my character beautiful or ugly as I like: that's my right when I create said character. If I want someone with a hair lip and 18 charisma, then that is what I'll have. :)
Okay, so what about the other factors of CHA. What are they worth?No for me half of CHA is visual output. Beauty would be a part of it often.Oh I mean like if the character looks good beyond her charisma.So for you, CHA is mainly a measure of physical beauty?
Hmm... What do you mean? Other factors than beauty? Or other factors than visual factors? Or visual factors besides beauty?
Even if I think that charisma is an important part of the game and should stay as one of the six abilities, I believe that racial modifiers to charisma are pretty stutpid. Think about it:
A dwarf is less likely to succeed a diplomacy check toward another dwarf than a gnome would be.
A tiefling is less likely to succeed a intimidate check than a human would be.
Gnome are better bard and sorcerer than elf (why?).
It's weird don't you think ?
So if Mr. Fishy dumps his str and take ranks in climb and his bonus to hit improves to a positive number does Mr. Fishy get to play him as a muscle bound guy flexing his bronzed bird chest like a Rambo knock off?
Cause he's learned to climb so he just as poor muscle endurance but great tone. Flex! He can run for miles and has lifted a horse [quickly] but he gets arm fatigue from scratching his nose.
I don't see the problem with having a low charisma score and then writing in your character background that he/she is a hottie. The fact that you are a hottie shouldn't give you any in game bonuses or even RP bonuses. Sure you can have the fighter who looks like Adonis but with a 7 CHA, what benefit does that give him. When trying to convince a tribe of kobolds that they can work together the still see him as a fleshy pink thing and with a total of -2 to his diplomacy he probably won't get very far in the negotiations.
How about an example where beauty helps, in a bar sure, I might have the barmaid single him out first to try and flirt with, but almost immediately she will realize that he is a lout and start paying attention to the less physically attractive but far more interesting gnome sorcerer.
The only time I actually see significant problems is when someone who as a player is charismatic and intelligent dumps the charisma and intelligence on their character and the player uses his own intelligence and charisma during roleplaying.
No for me half of CHA is visual output. Beauty would be a part of it often.The problem with attributing looks to "half" of charisma, is that the skills just don't seem to match up. Why should someone who's incredibly beautiful be more intimidating than the big ugly guy with a scar all the way up his face and only half a nose?
Furthermore, a wand doesn't care how beautiful you are. And personally, I think incredible beauty would make it more difficult to effectively disguise one's self.
I can call my character beautiful or ugly as I like: that's my right when I create said character. If I want someone with a hair lip and 18 charisma, then that is what I'll have. :)
Well I don't attribute looks to be half. There is much more to visual output thatn just looks.
If you wish to have an ugly character at cha 18, that's not usually a problem. You gain no advantage from it so no one gets burned. :-)
Gnome are better bard and sorcerer than elf (why?).
Gnomes are weird looking, yet they enjoy a Racial CHA Bonus. If this isn't proof-positive that CHA is more than looks, well I don't know what is. :)
says a bunch of stuff I agree with
The only time I actually see significant problems is when someone who as a player is charismatic and intelligent dumps the charisma and intelligence on their character and the player uses his own intelligence and charisma during roleplaying.
This can be difficult, but usually allows for some great RPing. :P
Agreed
Mok- you've got the right of it, IMO
|
|
So I guess the issue is that in Pathfinder, where almost every situation where looks are involved also bring into effect all of the body language and unspoken social cues, the poor charisma is inescapable. Just as in combat you can't say, "I take my dagger and stab the guy in the eye!" and have it mean anything mechanically (unless you roll high), likewise a player can't say "With my alluring looks I convince the guards to let me pass" and have it mean anything unless you roll high enough.
Player: "I hold my dagger to my chest, and murmur a quick prayer to the gods: "May this blade strike my foes true; may I vanquish my enemies in your name!" I run at the villain (gripping the haft of my dagger so tightly as to make my knuckles white), pull back my arm, and stab him in the eye!"
DM: (rolls) "As you charge at him, the villain lashes out and trips you with his guisarme. You fall flat on your face."
Player: "BUT IT SHOULD HAVE HIT BECAUSE I ROLE-PLAYED THAT REALLY WELL!"
Indeed but being beautiful is often an advantage, is it not? If there's a beauty contest, the character might win. So infact she would have a distinct bonus over her charisma in some cases. But in other cases still only retain the normal charisma penalty.So I guess the issue is that in Pathfinder, where almost every situation where looks are involved also bring into effect all of the body language and unspoken social cues, the poor charisma is inescapable. Just as in combat you can't say, "I take my dagger and stab the guy in the eye!" and have it mean anything mechanically (unless you roll high), likewise a player can't say "With my alluring looks I convince the guards to let me pass" and have it mean anything unless you roll high enough.
I agree. Those kind of things are exactly what I mean with visual output. Looks can be a part of it, but not necessarily and definitely not all of it.
Generally, a low charisma shows.
Indeed but being beautiful is often an advantage, is it not? If there's a beauty contest, the character might win. So infact she would have a distinct bonus over her charisma in some cases. But in other cases still only retain the normal charisma penalty.So I guess the issue is that in Pathfinder, where almost every situation where looks are involved also bring into effect all of the body language and unspoken social cues, the poor charisma is inescapable. Just as in combat you can't say, "I take my dagger and stab the guy in the eye!" and have it mean anything mechanically (unless you roll high), likewise a player can't say "With my alluring looks I convince the guards to let me pass" and have it mean anything unless you roll high enough.
I agree. Those kind of things are exactly what I mean with visual output. Looks can be a part of it, but not necessarily and definitely not all of it.
Generally, a low charisma shows.
If you really get it, then you're going to let the alluring lass have her chance to roll. You're not gonna think she's looking for an unfair advantage by dumping CHA to a 7, but taking Skill Focus: Diplomacy and parking ranks in the skill as well, right?
If you really get it, then you're going to let the alluring lass have her chance to roll. You're not gonna think she's looking for an unfair advantage by dumping CHA to a 7, but taking Skill Focus: Diplomacy and parking ranks in the skill as well, right?
Indeed but being beautiful is often an advantage, is it not? If there's a beauty contest, the character might win. So infact she would have a distinct bonus over her charisma in some cases. But in other cases still only retain the normal charisma penalty.So I guess the issue is that in Pathfinder, where almost every situation where looks are involved also bring into effect all of the body language and unspoken social cues, the poor charisma is inescapable. Just as in combat you can't say, "I take my dagger and stab the guy in the eye!" and have it mean anything mechanically (unless you roll high), likewise a player can't say "With my alluring looks I convince the guards to let me pass" and have it mean anything unless you roll high enough.
I agree. Those kind of things are exactly what I mean with visual output. Looks can be a part of it, but not necessarily and definitely not all of it.
Generally, a low charisma shows.
Absolutely shes gonna have her roll in my game. Just that she won't look alluring to the chap while approaching him or if he sees her standing in the street corner. I can't now recall if seduction is under diplomacy though, but depends what shes trying on what skill she rolls.
Absolutely shes gonna have her roll in my game. Just that she won't look alluring to the chap while approaching him or if he sees her standing in the street corner.
Then you're not really getting it; you're still insisting that CHA is mainly a gauge of visual beauty. And that's fine. As I've said before, I imagine 90% of groups take this same simple approach to CHA.
Absolutely shes gonna have her roll in my game. Just that she won't look alluring to the chap while approaching him or if he sees her standing in the street corner.Then you're not really getting it. You're insisting that CHA is mainly a gauge of visual beauty.
And that's fine. As I've said before, I imagine 90% of groups take this same simple approach to CHA.
What are you trying to do here? I've said repeatedly on this thread above that I consider visual output to be half and looks just a part of that.
-edit-
Oh and in case you misunderstood, I ment she's not going to look alluring to him first, but after talking to him, she will get her roll without any extra penalty or prejudice.
-edit-
Hmm... Maybe if she used disguise to get to look good clothingswise and make up and acting to walk, smile and otherwise hold an alluring posture. Then I think she'd be indistinguishable from high charisma in this case.
Amusingly, if charisma is partly appearance:
Elves have no racial charisma bonus. This does fit their frequent stereotype of being beautiful jerkasses. Nice appearance and horrid personality balance out to a zero overall.
Mr. Fishy had the same problem. Good Luck, debating with some one whos arguement is "You're wrong, I'm right."
Enjoy.
Mr. Fishy had the same problem. Good Luck, debating with some one whos arguement is "You're wrong, I'm right."
Enjoy.
Which is quite Ironic really since your argument comes close to the same.
However I bow out at this point -- nothing to see here but the flames.
Mr. Fishy had the same problem. Good Luck, debating with some one whos arguement is "You're wrong, I'm right."
Enjoy.
Which is quite Ironic really since your argument comes close to the same.
However I bow out at this point -- nothing to see here but the flames.
There was no flames before you two :-(
Could you please edit your posts?
.
..
...
....
.....
The only time I actually see significant problems is when someone who as a player is charismatic and intelligent dumps the charisma and intelligence on their character and the player uses his own intelligence and charisma during roleplaying.
Nailed it.
This goes for all the mental attributes.
Intelligence and Wisdom are also prime candidates for such abuse. A good DM will watch out for it and a good player will play the part properly.
::
Personally, if I am playing characters with a low charisma..
and/or
and/or
and/or
etc..
Low Charisma should be as much of a liability as low Intelligence. Low Wisdom and Charisma together is just asking for trouble!
I've said repeatedly on this thread above that I consider visual output to be half and looks just a part of that.
Right, and you're not alone in this theory. The RAW is no help, because it doesn't really address this issue. So, sadly, many people will play with this simple interpretation.
I ment she's not going to look alluring to him first
Right, even though the player insists that's not the case, you'll insist on enforcing your viewpoint. And that's fine.
Who's flaming anybody?
Amusingly, if charisma is partly appearance:
Elves have no racial charisma bonus. This does fit their frequent stereotype of being beautiful jerkasses. Nice appearance and horrid personality balance out to a zero overall.
While conversely, gnomes are a bit odd looking but interesting and engaging to talk to, with vivacious personalities.
As for dwarves getting no bonus in dealing with another dwarf, as opposed to a gnome: To me, that makes sense, in a way. Two dwarves will start off basically neutral to each other, much the same way as any two members of the same race would be. But since gnomes are very talkative and diplomatic and intense in personality, a more dour dwarf might find themselves caught up in the gnome's charm, overwhelmed by their personality, which wouldn't happen with another dwarf. Now, if it was a race that dwarves traditionally disliked or distrusted, that would be a different issue.
I've said repeatedly on this thread above that I consider visual output to be half and looks just a part of that.Right, and you're not alone in this theory. The RAW is no help, because it doesn't really address this issue. So, sadly, many people will play with this simple interpretation.
I ment she's not going to look alluring to him firstRight, even though the player insists that's not the case, you'll insist on enforcing your viewpoint. And that's fine.
Sure it's fine. GM usually enforce what characters can and can't do.
How about using disguise for make up and clothing and acting for body language, facial expressions and posture?
-edit-
And I don't feel GM is a tyrant for enforcing a low charisma character to give out negative visual appearance anymore than enforcing that a character without magic or wings can't fly, no matter how much they want it to be in their background.
How about using disguise for make up and clothing and acting for body language, facial expressions and posture?
What about it?
How about using disguise for make up and clothing and acting for body language, facial expressions and posture?
What about it?
Oh Ioaba wanted a low CHA character to be alluring before verbal interaction
The only real "problem" I have with the OP is that.. well.. people can be stone cold gorgeous and oogle worthy.. until they open their mouth. Poor manners or conduct can make you come across *terrible* even if you are actually very attractive. We see this in our popular actresses and singers everyday.
Likewise, someone who looks like they hit every single branch of an ugly tree 400 feet tall can actually turn out to be exceedingly charismatic and likeable.
So if a PC wants to dump charisma, be physically beautiful- but RP's the part either of being silent/standoffish or of being a *****/blunt whatever, then I'm fine with that.. and the mechanical disadvantages will fill out that role. (i.e. a crappy diplomacy or whatever). If they choose to use skills/feats to shore up that ability weakness then they are expending resources.. and balance is maintained.
But telling someone "you dumped charisma, you can't write that your character is physically attractive" is not the way to go, to me. and I certainly wouldn't go inventing new house rules to prevent someone from dumping a stat. If you want them to not dump it, make the house rule 'you can't make an ability score lower than X after racial adjustments".
-S
I think people give too much credit to stats.
I mean, maybe a low Cha means you have a terrible sense of humor, or that you are arrogant, or maybe you are emotionless or show too much emotion. There are lots of reasons that you might have a penalty far beyond just being ugly. I mean, I've met lots of beautiful people that I didn't like after having a single conversation with them.
"Being good at social situations" is a function of "Stat + skill + any other feat or ability that helps." That means that a person with 14 ranks in Diplomacy and a CHA of 4 is really a lot more likable than a person with 18 CHA and no ranks.
And it's the same with all the stats. A 10th level Wizard with an STR of 18 is a much worse swordsman than a 10th level Fighter with a STR of 8 because class features, feats, and equipment mean a lot more than base stats.