Huh? If it's 7 or less, why not be a fighter, then?
Just a guess, but perhaps he wants his character to do things that other rangers do?
You know, I just pulled out my 1st ed Unearthed Arcana and looked at the Comeliness rules.
While this is probably not OGL (but would be great if it were), it seems perfectly workable to just drag and drop the 1st ed Comeliness rules straight into Pathfinder and leave Charisma as a straight measure of personal magnetism. Saves a whole lot of argument about a factor that may not come into play much.
Also, it allows you to assess Comeliness penalties for things like characters who just crawled out of the sewer after wrestling an otyugh.
I'm starting a new campaign this weekend with a number of old school players as well as new ones who are quite game for variant rules. I'll tell you how it goes.
You know, I just pulled out my 1st ed Unearthed Arcana and looked at the Comeliness rules.
While this is probably not OGL (but would be great if it were), it seems perfectly workable to just drag and drop the 1st ed Comeliness rules straight into Pathfinder and leave Charisma as a straight measure of personal magnetism. Saves a whole lot of argument about a factor that may not come into play much.
Also, it allows you to assess Comeliness penalties for things like characters who just crawled out of the sewer after wrestling an otyugh.
I'm starting a new campaign this weekend with a number of old school players as well as new ones who are quite game for variant rules. I'll tell you how it goes.
IIRC comeliness had some bonus for being an Elf, which while it's in keeping with the source material is going to rub people the wrong way (especially victims of the 2e complete elf book). Previous editions often had copious amounts of "our elves are better" but 3.x seemed to want to abandon the elven ubermensch archetype.
Just don't bring over the BoEF appearance score ;)
IIRC comeliness had some bonus for being an Elf, which while it's in keeping with the source material is going to rub people the wrong way (especially victims of the 2e complete elf book). Previous editions often had copious amounts of "our elves are better" but 3.x seemed to want to abandon the elven ubermensch archetype.
Just don't bring over the BoEF appearance score ;)
The 1st ed elven comeliness bonus is minimal, and as I completely skipped over 2nd ed, I completely missed the Complete Book of Elfiness and the horrors therein.
Besides which, it's kind of fun to let elves have a Comeliness bonus but no Charisma bonus. It underscores that they're pretty to look at but haughty jerks once you get to know them.
Common usage of the concept of physical appearance generally incorporates attractiveness.So while you don't want to include measures of attractiveness within "appearance" it seems to be a relatively common thing when people discuss appearance.
Negative. Read my post. I am using the dictionary definition of appearance, which by definition is more of an aspect of presence, as quoted in my other post. The definition of appearance that Mr. Fishy, Lazzo, and some others is discredited and disproved countless times throughout the core rules.
Even your wikipedia link suggests countless factors that could contribute to a character's attractiveness and/or "appearance" which a single ability score could not ever hope to grasp, including - but not limited to - factors such as ethnicity, clothing, scars, and so forth. Some cultures would find scars disturbing or a mark of ugliness, while others may intentionally mar their flesh as a thing of beauty or honor. Some cultures find overweight people to be ugly, while others consider it a sign of beauty and vitality.
I pointed out that their argument is weak and lacks substance, whereas the arguments of other posters like Jess Door, Shadowlord, and myself have repeatedly produced multiple sources from within the rules, reality, and the very english language the book is written in; whereas our opponents repeatedly fall back to this specific interpretation that leads to absurdity, and have defended it with nothing more than useless comments and attempts to bait us, or misquote us and then try to dodge the issues instead of actually backing up their side of the debate.
It's pitiful, it's pathetic, and honestly it's pissing me off. You tell me that I do not want to include attractiveness as a portion of charisma, as though I had not included it my posts, or said that a character's charisma score can represent many things including but not limited to physical attractiveness.
You dare to tell me what I think, or what I want, or what I am saying, and yet you ignore my posts and stick up for their worthless arguments by what amounts to "well we'll assume it means exactly what they're saying because that's fine and dandy and once upon a time it meant that more than it does today". I am so sick of trying to engage in a fair and civil debate, only to receive trash in exchange, and people ignoring people who are actually making good arguments.
You sir have no right. Either put up, shut up, and don't tell me what I do and do not want.
Is it a bit neckbeardy to tie attractiveness to an ability score? Yeah but seriously we are talking one of the most neckbeard infested games around ;) If people want to tie physical attractiveness to Charisma and it works for their groups then more power to them. If it doesn't work for your group then decouple...
I don't see anything wrong with that...
One of my players (who's newer, and a great researcher) discovered that there was an expansion/correction on the 1st ed UA Comeliness rules published in Dragon 103 (and also available unofficially on the web) which I was never aware of.
Gygax had same highly sensible rules for attraction between similar races. For example, humans, halflings and firbolg all consider each other hotter than they consider other races, since the differences between the three are basically a matter of scale rather than having anything particularly weird or exotic like pointy ears or green skin and tusks or massive neckbeards.
|
One of my players (who's newer, and a great researcher) discovered that there was an expansion/correction on the 1st ed UA Comeliness rules published in Dragon 103 (and also available unofficially on the web) which I was never aware of.
Gygax had same highly sensible rules for attraction between similar races. For example, humans, halflings and firbolg all consider each other hotter than they consider other races, since the differences between the three are basically a matter of scale rather than having anything particularly weird or exotic like pointy ears or green skin and tusks or massive neckbeards.
Doesn't really account for the xenophiles though.
And in a setting with multiple races of such varying appearances, xenophilia in some form or another is likely to be pretty common.
DID SOMEONE SAY XENOPHILIA?!
I CAME AS QUICK AS I COULD.
|
|
It's pitiful, it's pathetic, and honestly it's pissing me off... You sir have no right. Either put up, shut up, and don't tell me what I do and do not want.
It might be an idea to tone back the language. If you are getting agitated, take a break from this thread. Everyone else here, as far as I have read, has managed to moderate the language in their posts.
One of my players (who's newer, and a great researcher) discovered that there was an expansion/correction on the 1st ed UA Comeliness rules published in Dragon 103 (and also available unofficially on the web) which I was never aware of.
Gygax had same highly sensible rules for attraction between similar races. For example, humans, halflings and firbolg all consider each other hotter than they consider other races, since the differences between the three are basically a matter of scale rather than having anything particularly weird or exotic like pointy ears or green skin and tusks or massive neckbeards.
Doesn't really account for the xenophiles though.
And in a setting with multiple races of such varying appearances, xenophilia in some form or another is likely to be pretty common.
Oh, quite likely, but xenophilia is more a matter of the tastes of the individual rather than the general aesthetics of the culture as a whole.
There's also the point at which you get to "To each his own," said the lady as she kissed the cow. Aiighghgh! Lesbian bestiality! How many will suffer the Divine Horror reaction and how many will buy tickets to watch?
I think it's safe enough to say that most ladies don't kiss cows, or bulls, or even particularly fine strapping minotaurs. Yeah, probably some do, but as it took Daedalus creating a mechanical cow suit so King Minos's kinky wife could cuckold him with the bull of Poseidon (and thereby beget the first minotaur), it would be a good idea to consider that most women aren't queens with master inventors on retainer to make their marital aids.
Which isn't to say that xenophilia wouldn't go on, but it's still probably within reason. Humanoids are probably dating other humanoids or at most monstrous humanoids at their kinkiest, because after a point, incompatible anatomy gets to be a problem.
I enjoy how my (wonderful!) GM has handled the Charisma/physical attractiveness question.
You can have a nice appearance and a low charisma, or vice versa, but there are advantages and disadvantages either way.
My current Ravenloft character, an undead bloodline Sorcerer has a charisma currently of 22. Her twin brother I believe is sitting at 11 IIRC.
He's attractive enough, but lacks personality and charm. He's pretty un-memorable. He's the current ruler of two countries (long story) and no one really recognizes him on sight, and they tend to find him fairly uninteresting after a moment or two. He's simply not that compelling.
My character is quite lovely and charming, is considered memorable, and holds attention. People remember her. This is not an advantage when you're unaware you're considered a wanted fugitive in your home country (another long story).
In other words, Charisma does not *have* to indicate your physical appearance entirely, and you can indeed make either a high or low charisma a disadvantage regardless of physical appearance with a bit of work on circumstances.
|
I enjoy how my (wonderful!) GM has handled the Charisma/physical attractiveness question.
You can have a nice appearance and a low charisma, or vice versa, but there are advantages and disadvantages either way.
My current Ravenloft character, an undead bloodline Sorcerer has a charisma currently of 22. Her twin brother I believe is sitting at 11 IIRC.
He's attractive enough, but lacks personality and charm. He's pretty un-memorable. He's the current ruler of two countries (long story) and no one really recognizes him on sight, and they tend to find him fairly uninteresting after a moment or two. He's simply not that compelling.
My character is quite lovely and charming, is considered memorable, and holds attention. People remember her. This is not an advantage when you're unaware you're considered a wanted fugitive in your home country (another long story).
In other words, Charisma does not *have* to indicate your physical appearance entirely, and you can indeed make either a high or low charisma a disadvantage regardless of physical appearance with a bit of work on circumstances.
In this case, we aren't discussing negative Charisma. What you described is accurate for a character with 11 Charisma, specifically they are average.
If your "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." are reflected in game as a negative number, that would indicate all of those values are negative. Sure you can skill point up a few specific traits that are charisma based, but on the whole those traits are considered negative relative to others in the same way a positive modifier makes that trait positive relative to others.
If you want to house rule it, fine. But the rule says that your Charisma score effects "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance." and as such a DM playing RAW will play them that way.
You can think you are a raven haired beauty, as a character, but if you actually want to be one, you need to put the points in charisma. Sorry if that makes your character less than you want it to be, but this isn't Nam, Smokey. There are rules. Particularly if it's a league game.
|
|
It's pitiful, it's pathetic, and honestly it's pissing me off. You tell me that I do not want to include attractiveness as a portion of charisma, as though...
Speaking for myself, I read your argument and did not agree with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness
Now I don't expect this to change your mind, but I do hope you realize your perception of what "attractiveness" is doesn't fall under consensus.
Second, your percentage allocation of values to each aspect followed to logical conclusion would allow me to argue my low intelligence character as an idiot savant who can reason but not learn, or can learn but not reason.
And even worse usage of your logic falls under wisdom, which "describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition." By your logic I should be able to tell my DM that I am allocating all of my wisdom to awareness, so now I don't take penalties to awareness anymore, but I will have even less common sense...in ways I determine.
If your score has a negative modifier, that is a negative thing. If you don't want to have a negative thing, don't have a negative score.
|
|
She has a Charisma of 8 and is specifically described as "unsettling to be around"You can think you are a raven haired beauty, as a character, but if you actually want to be one, you need to put the points in charisma.Ahem.
So we know where the devs stand on that issue.
True. How does that negate "raven haired beauty"?
Also, don't forget Amiri.
Let the players look however they want. The CHA can play off of that and other factors.
What should NOT happen is for the GM to tell players that they find one NPC more attractive than another because of some quantified stat.
Quantifying beauty, among other things, is one of those things that lead to Imagination Death and helps murder any sense of wonder and believability in the game.
It's pitiful, it's pathetic, and honestly it's pissing me off... You sir have no right. Either put up, shut up, and don't tell me what I do and do not want.It might be an idea to tone back the language. If you are getting agitated, take a break from this thread. Everyone else here, as far as I have read, has managed to moderate the language in their posts.
She's not the first, or the worst.
This g+!*@&n thread.
|
|
She has a Charisma of 8 and is specifically described as "unsettling to be around"You can think you are a raven haired beauty, as a character, but if you actually want to be one, you need to put the points in charisma.Ahem.
So we know where the devs stand on that issue.
True. How does that negate "raven haired beauty"?
Also, don't forget Amiri.
Let the players look however they want. The CHA can play off of that and other factors.
What should NOT happen is for the GM to tell players that they find one NPC more attractive than another because of some quantified stat.
The point is that the example you gave is "unsettling to be around" at Charisma 8. I guess you can be hot as long as you are "unsettling to be around" which would functionally have the same effect on those interacting with you.
|
|
And the players and NPCs can react according to other factors as well as evolve their reactions after the first impression.
The point is, players should not have to invest in CHA or dump it to make their character look how they want, unless they want shimmering halos of "love me" shining at all times, which is not what people against the direct relationship between attractiveness and CHA are arguing for.
Personally, I'm seeing where a lot of Ashiel's and Cirno's frustrations are coming from. Quantifying beauty is not only nonsensical to many folks, it's downright offensive.
This thread would make Shelyn rage.
And then she would probably want to give everyone hugs anyway, bless her.
|
|
Personally, I'm seeing where a lot of Ashiel's and Cirno's frustrations are coming from. Quantifying beauty is not only nonsensical to many folks, it's downright offensive.
What?
It's a game, played with dice, where numbers represent the characters.
If you have higher numbers, you are better at the things the numbers represent than if you have low numbers.
If "Quantifying" an imaginary character is "nonsensical" or "downright offensive" to you, I don't know how you can play the game.
Your character will always have limits on what it can and can not be. If it doesn't, and that makes you, your DM, and fellow players happy, that is great and wonderful...for how you want to play with your group.
Rules, and even your example, say that if you have a low charisma, people don't like you.
The definition from RAW clearly states it covers appearance above. To be anything more than "bland" you need some charisma; extremely beautiful and strikingly ugly all fall into the high-Cha range.
This is a more acceptable way of viewing it than low CHA = Ugly and high CHA = Beautiful. It is logical and is consistent with many of the examples in the book. However, it still doesn't account for everything. There are also plenty of low CHA creatures and races that aren't physically bland at all. One of the top of my head is Tieflings, who as a race receive -2 to CHA but are quite the opposite of bland. In fact the flavor text that is associated with the hit to CHA says they are "inherently strange" which to me indicates quite the opposite of being bland, yet as a race they suffer from low CHA which according to your reasoning would make them quite bland as a race. Another PC race example is Halflings. As a race they get +2 CHA which according to your reasoning means that as a race they should be quite physically notable. However, they are not, if anything they are the least physically notable of the PC races and often go completely unnoticed. It is their personalities that make them notable. Like I said, your reasoning is more logical than low = ugly and high = pretty but it still doesn't account for several examples in the books. If this was just one or two races or creatures that fell outside the general rule that would be one thing, but there are quite a few.
Then I guess I have been hitting people with +5 Vorpal Blade.
The thing is, everyone has their own way of playing style. Some of the rules are really clear, some are somewhat less-or-more, and some are vague (oh boy, someone want to speak about Stealth rules again?).
Its up to DM judgement (in their each own game) how to define these things. I belong to Mr.Fishy, BeningFasist and ciretose group (Charisma = Looks). I expect there to be consequences. IF, I ever make a character with 7 charisma (who is damn hot/awesome/sexy as beast (like Beholder) I will be playing him as a handsome guy BUT for hell sure, he will have hard time approaching people. Actually, he is quite hardnut to crack, since most of time, he is misunderstood and rely instead to his blades to deliver message and I don´t rely to my Diplomacy (-2 mod anyway) but I let my sorceress friend to take care of talking. She/He is more natural at this and who knows, my guy might benefit from this
I see the point of everyone else: Ashie, Jesse Door etc, that charisma is something else also. This is THEIR judgment. Not mine, not Mr. Fishy, not God. Their interpretation. As a DM, we bring the rules alive and describe the world around us. If that Chick there is flirting with your handsome valiant knight, let him and her do it, but closer the chick gets your mr. 7 charisma, she will back up faster than light can achieve lightspeed... oh, was that wrongly said? I guess so
I even read the previous thread, which spinned this thread alive. All it takes, is DM to judge things differently
|
|
Personally, I'm seeing where a lot of Ashiel's and Cirno's frustrations are coming from. Quantifying beauty is not only nonsensical to many folks, it's downright offensive.
What?
It's a game, played with dice, where numbers represent the characters.
Within reason. They do not dictate and set in stone every single detail of the character.
If you have higher numbers, you are better at the things the numbers represent than if you have low numbers.
And taking an absolutist stance on that makes certain character concepts downright impossible.
And Charisma is still the most loosely defined and nebulous of the stats. If shirking a direct relation between attractiveness and beauty with CHA is good enough for the makers of the game, it's good enough for me.
If "Quantifying" an imaginary character is "nonsensical" or "downright offensive" to you, I don't know how you can play the game.
Misrepresenting the point. Also, I play by having people act like people, not like robots running off procedures and cold data.
Your character will always have limits on what it can and can not be. If it doesn't, and that makes you, your DM, and fellow players happy, that is great and wonderful...for how you want to play with your group.
Rules, and even your example, say that if you have a low charisma, people don't like you.
And for anyone trying to run a world that makes a lick of damn sense, that only goes so far. First impressions. After that, it's the player's actual play that becomes more important.
|
|
And for anyone trying to run a world that makes a lick of damn sense, that only goes so far. First impressions. After that, it's the player's actual play that becomes more important.
By that logic, a good player can enhance the character strength? You aren't the character, the character is the character. You may personally be witty and charming, but if your character has a negative charisma, they aren't.
|
|
By that logic, a good player can enhance the character strength? You aren't the character, the character is the character. You may personally be witty and charmina, but if your character has a negative charisma, they aren't.
And for anyone trying to run a world that makes a lick of damn sense, that only goes so far. First impressions. After that, it's the player's actual play that becomes more important.
A player can enhance STR by getting loots.
A player can play their character in-character and improve(or worsen) impressions in others through interacting with people. Whether things get better or worse should depend on countless factors involving that character and all the PC/NPC's involved, not a single cold stat.
|
|
A player can enhance STR by getting loots.
A player can play their character in-character and improve(or worsen) impressions in others through interacting with people. Whether things get better or worse should depend on countless factors involving that character and all the PC/NPC's involved, not a single cold stat.
And a player can enhance Cha by "getting loots"
You don't have to be ugly. You can be annoying, like the boss from "The Office." But if you have low Charisma, you have...well...low charisma.
Play how you want and how your DM will allow, but the rules say it effects those things.
|
|
A player can enhance STR by getting loots.
A player can play their character in-character and improve(or worsen) impressions in others through interacting with people. Whether things get better or worse should depend on countless factors involving that character and all the PC/NPC's involved, not a single cold stat.
And a player can enhance Cha by "getting loots"
You don't have to be ugly. You can be annoying, like the boss from "The Office." But if you have low Charisma, you have...well...low charisma.
Play how you want and how your DM will allow, but the rules say it effects those things.
I'm not saying it doesn't.
What I am saying is that CHA should not dictate what a character looks like, or decide an absolute result for how people react to their appearance. And that CHA should not be the be-all end-all on matters involving it.
Elven bard and half-orc barbarian walk into a bar. Human barmaid has a thing for orcy types. Who's she going to serve first.
And again, my earlier example:
|
|
A player can enhance STR by getting loots.
A player can play their character in-character and improve(or worsen) impressions in others through interacting with people. Whether things get better or worse should depend on countless factors involving that character and all the PC/NPC's involved, not a single cold stat.
And a player can enhance Cha by "getting loots"
You don't have to be ugly. You can be annoying, like the boss from "The Office." But if you have low Charisma, you have...well...low charisma.
Play how you want and how your DM will allow, but the rules say it effects those things.
I'm not saying it doesn't.
What I am saying is that CHA should not dictate what a character looks like, or decide an absolute result for how people react to their appearance. And that CHA should not be the be-all end-all on matters involving it.
Elven bard and half-orc barbarian walk into a bar. Human barmaid has a thing for orcy types. Who's she going to serve first.
And again, my earlier example:
Yes, but there is something about that leperous sorcerer that demands respect, and that needs to be played out as well.
It's not all about "do you want to do" the character, it's do you think the character is annoying/vapid/interesting...Charismatic if you will.
|
|
A player can enhance STR by getting loots.
A player can play their character in-character and improve(or worsen) impressions in others through interacting with people. Whether things get better or worse should depend on countless factors involving that character and all the PC/NPC's involved, not a single cold stat.
And a player can enhance Cha by "getting loots"
You don't have to be ugly. You can be annoying, like the boss from "The Office." But if you have low Charisma, you have...well...low charisma.
Play how you want and how your DM will allow, but the rules say it effects those things.
I'm not saying it doesn't.
What I am saying is that CHA should not dictate what a character looks like, or decide an absolute result for how people react to their appearance. And that CHA should not be the be-all end-all on matters involving it.
Elven bard and half-orc barbarian walk into a bar. Human barmaid has a thing for orcy types. Who's she going to serve first.
And again, my earlier example:
Yes, but there is something about that leperous sorcerer that demands respect, and that needs to be played out as well.
It's not all about "do you want to do" the character, it's do you think the character is annoying/vapid/interesting...Charismatic if you will.
And again, I'm not saying the player doesn't need to put the work in to play the character.
What I'm saying is that CHA should not define its component parts in a direct relationship and that the player should have some damn leeway and that numbers should not decide how their character looks.
|
|
And again, I'm not saying the player doesn't need to put the work in to play the character.
What I'm saying is that CHA should not define its component parts in a direct relationship and that the player should have some damn leeway and that numbers should not decide how their character looks.
And I am saying again that that rules say Charisma also governs appearance, but that you can make yourself pretty as long as you are also annoying.
Play how you want. No one is stopping you. Almost everyone house rules something or other. But the rules are the rules.
Sir, may I introduce you to the RAW crowd!
So the "RAW crowd" finds one sentence that suits their view and completely discount the rest of what is written in the books? According to the "RAW crowd" even the designers can't follow their own rules. If your interpretation of RAW indicates that the designers wrote the rest of the book without following their own rules, your interpretation of RAW is probably wrong.
For instance: plenty of people say that Darkvision overcomes a Shadowdancer's HiPS because of this one sentence, "A creature can't hide within 60 feet of a character with darkvision unless it is invisible or has cover." They take a look at that one sentence and cling to it for dear life because it supports their point. And yes that is RAW, but it is only ONE SMALL PART of the RAW that is applicable to that discussion and if you take all of what is written as a whole you see that interpretation is in fact wrong. It is no different with this argument. Just because one sentence supports your argument doesn't mean that is RAW and the only RAW and anyone else is using house-rules; especially when, if taken as a whole, all the stuff dealing with that subject shows a pattern of your argument being flawed.
I'm going to fess up to being part of the no dump crowd, but at the same time, I want to say that I do agree that there should be *some* flexibility (look out, he's going to be reasonable! run!)
Seriously, however, I think if someone's taken a 7 in charisma, they're going to have to face the fact that they're probably not physically attractive. I'm not saying that they've been beaten with the ugly stick by any means, but I also think that the whole "My low charisma character is still godlike in appearance but is just a jerk/nerd/bookworm" thing is a munchkin-driven cop-out, and one that's not supported by the RAW. (And I've seen similar arguments done for every dump stat -- for years now... eg - the low-str or low-con character is just out of shape, the low-dex guy has steady hands of steel but poor balance, etc..)
Having said that, however, looks are just *part* of the charisma score, and so it's certainly possible that the 7 charisma guy *is* more jerky than ugly -- he might be mostly average looking or even slightly better -- but at the same time, to make up for the fact that Charisma's always "on", there's got to be something else there -- and not just the fact that he's got "a tone", because that doesn't manifest when he's not speaking... So, for our game, people who go the "7 charisma = jerky but ok looking" can do so - but they're accepting the fact that they're not actually attractive so much as one of those people who would "be so attractive if... (x)", where (x) becomes those other intangible things that can totally ruin someone's looks - whether it's the constant scowl which just advertises their bad attitude, the fact that they don't make eye contact (whether they're shifty-eyed or just staring at cleavage all the time), or even just one of those people who, for some reason, just sets your hair on edge....
(And, to be fair, this totally works the other way, also -- surely everyone's got one friend that they think is amazing looking but just does *not* photograph well - because the camera can't capture the intangibles...)
After all, the thing to remember here is that Charisma is passive -- it's always on -- people with high charisma are just plain likable (and most of them also have strong personalities and looks, but it's the sheer likeability that gets you) -- whereas people with low charisma who learn social skills are just that - people who aren't inherently likeable, but who have learned how to game people somewhat. (And, to bring this into the focus I think it deserves, let me, for instance, point out that there's been a decent amount of success teaching high-functionning autistics social skills -- which makes these people far more able to function in the real world - but at the same time, they're *not* winning any popularity contests).
So, to recap: In my game, the dude with 7 charisma who's described himself as being super-handsome *won't* get the barmaid in his lap when he enters the bar with the dude with 14 charisma -- because the 7 charisma guy might be ok looking (in a photo), but he oozes attitude or ego and looks at the barmaid like she's a piece of meat - while the guy with the 14 may only be slightly better looking (or, heck, even look the same), but there's just something about his smile, or the twinkle of his eye, or the way he looks at you when he's speaking to you that draws you in.
Ok, now, people on both sides, feel free to start with the flaming.
I will not be flaming you. This seems to go along well with what I see when I read all the examples of PC races, NPC races, and monsters in the PF books. It also seems to go hand in hand with what I got from Ash's thread.
the whole "My low charisma character is still godlike in appearance but is just a jerk/nerd/bookworm" thing is a munchkin-driven cop-out...
This did not seem, IMO, to be what Ash's thread was pushing. She described a Fighter with a 7 CHA as being handsome, which could mean any level of attractiveness but does not indicate god-like beauty. She never claimed that he would win out in physical appearance to the 22 CHA Bard or anything dramatic. It was an RP description of being handsome but highly socially inept, as opposed to fugly and rude, or fugly but sociable. There was no indication that those RP looks should provide any bonus to CHA based things and as she said in this thread the roll is still "1d20 -2."
DID SOMEONE SAY XENOPHILIA?!
I CAME AS QUICK AS I COULD.
Double entendre, ha haaa
And I am saying again that that rules say Charisma also governs appearance, but that you can make yourself pretty as long as you are also annoying.
I haven't read your entire exchange but I don't think anyone is saying that a low CHA should be played like a Phoebus character (The Hunchback of Notre Dame), attractive with a winning personality. Nor do they want to be locked into a Beast character (Beauty and the Beast) where they are ugly and horrible to associate with. But what is wrong with a Quasimodo (The Hunchback of Notre Dame) where you are unattractive but very caring and nice to be around? If you say yes to that, then what is wrong with the opposite where you are attractive but is socially inept in some way or puts of bad vibes in some manner? Keep in mind no one is saying the word attractive = god-like beauty.
Sir, may I introduce you to the RAW crowd!So the "RAW crowd" finds one sentence that suits their view and completely discount the rest of what is written in the books?
Yes.. and then they bring it up every time the matter is dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day.
Note: Pathfinder Society is heavily governed by RAW in an attempt to set a gaming standard with which we can all engage with and ideally enjoy. This makes RAW arguments very compelling as the concept actually dictates play for myself and many many others.
Personally when your interpretation of RAW indicates that the designers wrote the rest of the book without following their own rules, your interpretation of RAW is probably wrong.
O-o I hate RAW.
I, personally, mercilessly bend, break and re-hash the rules on the fly in the name of entertainment, fist-a-shaking abound!
I'm all for reasonable variation in the interpretation of various stats which I had hoped my posts made clear to everyone apart from poor Prof.
Sorry Prof! >_<
My point, which was quickly picked up by many parties I notice, was that skills used to compensate for low/lacking Charisma are 'active' - i.e you have to use them - while the Charisma stat is typically passive and hopefully a realistically reactive campaign reflects this.
In other words - a low charisma, high social skills character must actively work hard to enjoy the same benefits a high charisma, low social skills character should enjoy passively.
If this isn't the case then I ask if the DM is giving the Charisma stat the full representation that it deserves.
::
However, there is no escaping that, by RAW - Charisma does indeed govern physical appearance. Other sources/examples of Charisma in play may offer opportunities for us to claim a conflict between one or more aspects of the stat's intended design but unless some other source specifically states 'Charisma does not effect physical appearance' or the like, then, by RAW, Charisma governs physical appearance.
Because, the Rules, As Written, read so.
We can weigh in as much evidence to support as many counter arguments as we wish but RAW is RAW - Rules As Written. We need (a) written rule/s that supersedes the written definition of Charisma for things to be otherwise.
::
Right, I have a Savage Bard to make.
Or Inquisitor.. hmm..
no! Crossbow marksman named 'Fabio!'
No, no, a Bones Oracle. Maybe.
Decay/Wind priest? Hmmmm
Yes.. and then they bring it up every time the matter is dragged kicking and screaming into the light of day.Sir, may I introduce you to the RAW crowd!So the "RAW crowd" finds one sentence that suits their view and completely discount the rest of what is written in the books?
Fair enough.
However, it seems like a very closed-minded way of looking at the game. According to that view the designers are idiots who can't even write their own game in accordance to their own rules. So between assuming that and assuming that the rule should be interpreted differently, I tend to try finding an interpretation that can account for most if not all examples written in the published books and assume the designers aren't stupid.
Personally when your interpretation of RAW indicates that the designers wrote the rest of the book without following their own rules, your interpretation of RAW is probably wrong.O-o I hate RAW.
I don't think the problem is RAW. I think the problem is people who cling for dear life to one sentence out of many and claim that only the one sentence they are quoting counts as RAW. As Written is part of the meaning of RAW and there are several examples written in both the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary that fly in direct contradiction to the interpretation of "the RAW crowd." So again, if your interpretation of RAW can't reconcile all the examples in what is written and published, then it's not a problem with RAW but with your interpretation.
My point, which was quickly picked up by many parties I notice, was that skills used to compensate for low/lacking Charisma are 'active' - i.e you have to use them - while the Charisma stat is typically passive.
In other words - a low charisma, high social skills character must actively work harder to enjoy the same benefits a high charisma, low social skills character should enjoy passively.
If this isn't the case then I ask if the DM is giving the Charisma stat the full representation that it deserves.
I agree. However, it is worth noting that there are no rules for how someone reacts to you simply based on CHA, it is all determined by CHA based Social Skills when they are needed and rolled. From what I got out of Ash's thread and the PBP that she started, they didn't seem to be saying that a low CHA character should be played and treated exactly the same as a high CHA character. Rather, that a low CHA character could, through effort, overcome his natural hang-ups.
However, there is no escaping that, by RAW - Charisma does indeed govern physical appearance.
True, but how exactly and to what degree? Do all 7 CHA things have to look like Quasimodo and act like the Beast? That certainly doesn't seem to be consistent with the examples that are also written and published. Claiming something to be RAW without taking into account what is written seems pretty closed-minded to me.
....
Note: Pathfinder Society is heavily governed by RAW in an attempt to set a gaming standard with which we can all engage with and ideally enjoy. This makes RAW arguments very compelling as the concept actually dictates play for myself and many many others.
I feel your pain. I have had a few debates with society GMs on the forums that have completely turned me off to the idea of trying a society game. If I ever do play in a society game it will be something that is straight forward and easy to interpret.
The problem with RAW is that it can be hard to determine what is actually rules mechanics and what is flavor text meant to expand a relatively simple set of mechanics. I've seen a large number of arguments and rules exploits hinge on a particular interpretation of flavor text particularly on the internet.
In this case we have in excess of 400 posts bickering about whether charisma should incorporate a measure of physical attractiveness. Truthfully nobody in either camp is going to move or back down from their position but that's the nature of internet debate, compromise is actively discouraged by some people's debating style.
My personal issues with Charisma can be condensed to 2 flaws:
Charisma is not equivalent in value to the other Attributes: Outside of charisma dependent classes (spontaneous casters and paladins) there is little mechanical reason not to dump charisma to 7 in order to pay for better stats in other areas. Granted this has been a problem with D&D since the beginning but it's still a design flaw.
Social Skill usage (bluff, diplomacy, animal handling, intimidate, etc) are all active skills rather than passive skills. I think there is room in the game for passive applications of raw charisma in order to handle the variety of situations in which people make value judgements about your PC even though you aren't actively interacting with them.
Everyone makes spot judgements about other people based upon factors like appearance in real life, I'm not sure there isn't room within the 3.x design space for passive application of the raw charisma score. Yes it's outside of raw but it's not like it's not a valid area of discussion.
Mr. Fishy
Name Drop Count=4
Mr. Fishy Fan Thread post there if you what to. Mr. Fishy loves Mr. Fishy too.
It's pitiful, it's pathetic, and honestly it's pissing me off. You tell me that I do not want to include attractiveness as a portion of charisma, as though...
we disagree?
Yes some of us do. Mr. Fishy told you he doesn't sit at your table so play as you see fit.
Mr. Fishy plays a different game. You asked for citation we quoted the book, you attacked.
One question why is it such a big deal that we disagree?
"If you hate something destory it or ignore it. To do otherwise glorifies it."
Fair enough.However, it seems like a very closed-minded way of looking at the game. According to that view the designers are idiots who can't even write their own game in accordance to their own rules.
I think it's safe to say that the designers of the game want us to feel free to do things however we wish and damn anyone who tells us that whatever we're doing within our own games is 'wrong'.
I don't think the problem is RAW. I think the problem is people who cling for dear life to one sentence out of many and claim that only the one sentence they are quoting counts as RAW.
Yes. However, the concept of RAW gives those wishing to practice this madness the power to do so.
In many ways RAW can be a good thing - clarification is always nice and, personally, I like to know what's what before I tinker - I've wrecked many a campaign fixing something until it breaks.
Note: The other classic example of a RAW Lawyer is the 'proof' that an absence of rules supposedly represents.
I agree. However, it is worth noting that there are no rules for how someone reacts to you simply based on CHA, it is all determined by CHA based Social Skills when they are needed and rolled. From what I got out of Ash's thread and the PBP that she started, they didn't seem to be saying that a low CHA character should be played and treated exactly the same as a high CHA character. Rather, that a low CHA character could, through effort, overcome his natural hang-ups.
Yes, but they also tried to argue that Charisma governing appearance was not RAW. Hence the RAW debate. Unfortunately, according to RAW, they were wrong. Luckily, we don't have to abide by RAW with our home games.
I agree that the exact nature of 'what is appearance' is subjective but then.. so is, to my limited mind, reality @_@..
...we can argue what red *is* until we're blue(yellow? green? cheese?) in the face.
Unfortunately, there are many idiots (in the classical sense of the word) and so RAW is required to set a standard.
Luckily, we can choose to break this standard in our own games.
True, but how exactly and to what degree? Do all 7 CHA things have to look like Quasimodo and act like the Beast? That certainly doesn't seem to be consistent with the examples that are also written and published. Claiming something to be RAW without taking into account what is written seems pretty closed-minded to me.
Personally, I figure that it doesn't matter what they look like so long as it's detrimental to their social interactions.
Yes the 'quality' of aesthetic representation can be a highly subjective which is why I support reasonable variation.
However, if a character has Charisma 7 then claiming they are dashing and handsome they are, to my mind, 'pushing it'.
..and I'm all for pushing things. However, you can only do it so often and so much before it becomes unreasonable and something breaks.
Typically the DM's sanity.
What's worse, it risk becoming a cliché..
..and that's just not cool, yo. :)
I feel your pain. I have had a few debates with society GMs on the forums that have completely turned me off to the idea of trying a society game. If I ever do play in a society game it will be something that is straight forward and easy to interpret.
Aye, however I'd advise you to give it a shot. I have found that under the harshest conditions true creativity can flourish. Any ole' muppet can knock up something 'amazing and different' given an open canvass but it takes real craftsmanship do what we can with the tools we get and create something truly unique.
::
So aye, seemingly we're in 'general' agreement - RAW Lawyering sucks worse than a jawless hooker, Charisma's governing of appearance should be flexible but (hopefully) practiced within the constraints of common sense and style.
Sleep. Good night Mr Shadowlord - all the best and the best of all!
>Covers Facist with Benign Blanket<
That'll do airbreather, that'll do.
The main problem I see is it's not a matter of RAW, but RA-Interpreted. The definition for the word appearance, as defined on Dictionary.com more to do with presence and ability to present yourself to the public, rather than physical beauty or handsomeness.
Under this interpretation, it becomes perfectly understandable why something like a Hag could have a Charisma of 17, because they have such an astounding presence and ability to portray themselves as desired (such as a kind old woman with a tasty apple).
Likewise, it's still perfectly understandable why a beautiful creature could have a Charisma of 17, because they have such an astounding presence and the ability to portray themselves as desired (such as a wicked witch seducing a prince with her beauty).
Additionally, it's still perfectly understandable why a beautiful creature could have a Charisma of 7, because they have such a poor presence and ability to portray themselves as desired (such as the handsome guy who comes off like a stuck-up jackass).
And many more options.
Likewise, no one ever said that it couldn't measure appearances, merely that you could have varying degrees of each. It's not that you have an above-average modifier with a handsome 7 Cha character. You gain no mechanical benefit from it. There's no "this is my pretty modifier". There is simply a Diplomacy roll, taking your -2 into account for the combined effect of all your charisma assets.
We also have to look at things logically. Humans are logical beings, and to not use our ability to reason is a disservice to ourselves and others. Through logic, reasoning, and observance, we can see that one interpretation of the Charisma description (merely a description, no more or less than the description of a creature) leads to an absurdity (in this case the lack of variance between people, including - but not limited to - all low charisma people looking like lepers and being rude and offputting, and all high charisma people looking perfect and being perfect, and all average people having completely bland personalities).
Whereas an equal interpretation of the same writing allows for variance, allows the rules to flow, coincides with the rest of the RAW, and makes more sense. By all reasoning, this is the correct interpretation.
Additionally, the opposition has repeatedly implied rules that do not exist as a method of proving their points. For example, suggesting that being handsome would allow you to ignore your -2 penalty from Charisma, or arguing against non-existent mechanical benefits.
Likewise, the only RAW material we have for interacting with people is Diplomacy, Bluff, and Sense Motive. There is no "first impression" charisma rule, and when dealing with people (we're talking roughly 60 seconds of interaction, which is enough to exchange a few sentences and mannerisms) you make a Diplomacy check. Even modifiers based on appearances such as the Courtier's outfit and Parade Armor provide modifiers to these skills, not effective charisma or the like, but to Charisma-based skills and Diplomacy. So here's another piece of RAW that doesn't support their interpretation.
This is not an argument against the RAW, this is an argument against the "Rules As Interpreted by those guys". Both readings are perfectly valid, but one makes sense and the other is absurd.
Arguing that Diplomacy is not the check to use for impressions and interaction is actually directly against the RAW. Items that specifically declare they grant mechanical bonuses based on visual conditions grant modifiers to Diplomacy (or Bluff), and are entirely based on impressions due to the clothes you're wearing, so we can see how this conflicts heavily here.
So apparently both teams are arguing RAW, but one team is clinging to only one piece of RAW which isn't particularly steady since it can be interpreted exactly as we have noted it without changing the words. Likewise, we're also citing other examples from within the same sentence, structured logic, and we're showing how the RAW can be used to play a solid game without trouble, while they are inventing non-existent rules to support their interpretation of the RAW.
How can it not be clear which side has won this debate?
This entire thread is suffused with the most delicious irony...
Mr. Fishy doesn't know what irony is but if it's delicious give Mr. Fishy two.
Both readings are perfectly valid, but one makes sense and the other is absurd.
WAIT! WHAT?
As a part time robot, I can tell you the i-ron is a necessary mineral for good bone structure.
Also, no one calls Soundwave un-chrasimatic!