I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?
Yes. All dump stats require a penalty above and beyond the penalty of dumping the stat in order to reinforce the idea that you are the DM and don't like that.
In Drow Society it isn't what you do, it's were you seen. If there aren't an witnesses it happened like you said it did.
"Worse accident I ever saw, fell down and mine shaft and landed on 12 hand cross bow bolts...in the back."
Drow putting the literal in backstabbing b$+%+.
|
Make it even more simple than that if you want it to be "luck"... just give half the pally bonus to all saves (round down). Saves need to be higher anyway mid-game.
This makes sorcerers more appealing, making dumping cha almost a non-reality (since 7-9 is -1 to all saves), etc. Drawback is it hurts all of those who liked/needed a dump stat (especially the poor monk).
How do you mean "specific", Charisma covers "personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance", I would say initially personal magnetism and appearance could be assessed in the few seconds it takes for a character to come up with an initial attitude. How is that silly at all?
I mean specific in that his words implied that the character's low charisma a specific thing, whereas it can actually represent a wide variety of social archtypes.
Compare someone who is attractive, well dressed & presented walking up to the NPC confidently and smiling warmingly, to a character who is homely, scruffily dressed and who nervously shuffles towards the NPC, won't make eye contact, then grins inannely.
I'm not sure what this has to do with the portion of my post that you quoted, but yes, this is emulated by the +x/-x for having a high or low charisma specifically.
Thats enough to make a first impression even before either of those people open their mouths. It may turn out that the confident person can't talk diplomatically for toffee and the nervous person is a skilled negotiator, but that won't come to light until they have a minute with the NPC.
Nothing comes into play until you've had about a minute with someone. A person's attitude doesn't initially change because you have a low or high charisma. That would be a house rule (and a spiteful one at that) because officially a person needs a minute of NPC interaction to influence their opinion of them at all.
Likewise, it's overkill mechanically to adjust someone's starting attitude based on charisma, because it means that the starting attitude for NPCs will be harsher for no reason
Not for no reason, but for not creating a great first impression. And this was only suggested as a default when no other factors indicate what the initial attitude should be - if the NPC is a shopkeeper hoping for a sale he will likely be friendly no matter what, whilst if the NPC just saw the PC kill his friend he will be hostile no matter what.
The great first impression comes during that 1st minute of NPC/PC interaction. You're, again, implying that a low charisma means a specific thing ("He looks weird, he's a slob, she's poorly dressed, she smells funny") when it can represent many things and does frequently.
If no other factors indicate what the initial attitude should be, wouldn't it be logical to default to "indifferent"?
which in turns means they will have to deal with subsequently higher DCs for no reason, when the drawback to a low charisma is you have a penalty to social skills already. In short, it's redundant and it's just spiteful.
Yes, just as spiteful as not allowing that Strength 8 character carry as much as the Strength 14 character, or not allowing that Int 8 character bonus skill points each level.
And yes, it may (emphasis on may) mean higher DCs later, where the low charisma will also cause a penalty - just like having a low strength will mean a lower chance to hit initially and also less damage if you do hit. Someone with a lower charisma should perhaps do all they can to make sure that initial attitude is not determined solely by their charisma, perhaps presenting a gift, ensuring they have a good reputation etc.
No it's not. Now if you said "Since your character has a 7 Strength, all his gear counts as being twice as heavy because he's really not strong" when his weight limit is already lower than the average PC. Then, THEN you would be correct. It would be just as spiteful as intentionally raising all the base DCs for a character with a penalty from Charisma but using lower DCs for the characters with a bonus.
Do you deny?
Using Charisma every so often to determine INitial Attitudes of NPCs is one way that the DM can differentiate the Charisma Stat from social skill ranks, and make that high Charisma character shine, even if he isn't the one with the highest overall modifier.
It's already handled. If a character has no specific starting attitude then they're indifferent. That's what indifferent is for. Now with a charisma penalty it's very easy within the first few moments of interaction that they will become unfriendly.
Likewise, I say it's not a good way at all. It requires metagaming on the GM's part. You're basically saying "Ok, the NPCs know what your charisma score is, regardless if it actually is low due to outward appearance or because you've got tourette syndrome and make funny twitching motions when you're talking to people.
As a GM I don't expect my players to go "Hey, what's this monster's ability scores? My character is deciding whether to use waves of exhaustion or stinking cloud, and I'd like to know his Constitution modifier, and if his charisma is less than 6, Carl should use Ego whip" and I don't expect my NPCs to go "Hey, here comes a guy with a 7 charisma, I think I'm going to dislike him on sight, even though Charisma can mean varying degrees of no less than four different things in very unspecific ways".
You obviously feel different, fine, but please don't belittle the way other people play by labelling it as "silly" and "spiteful".
Read my comment on strength above to see the logical fallacy and why it's both silly and spiteful. I call 'em as I see 'em, my friend.
No, she chose some of the component parts of Charisma to be especially low so that one could be a little above average. Then she took ranks in Diplomacy to indicate the character took time learning how to make up for his social deficiencies whenever he's going out of his way to be charming and friendly with someone.
Look up.^
Every character with the same charisma score doesn't have the exact same personality.
Agreed Int and Wis and alignment all effect personality, Charisma effects attractiveness and social "talent."
High Charisma plus Max ranks in Intimidate and a nongood alignment= a selfish cruel person that is beautiful and hated at the same time.
And again I must ask: what's your point?
Low charisma isn't the only way to be a unlikeable prig.
Half-orcs are monstrosities...[opinion] Both genders of half-orc stand between 6 and 7 feet tall, with powerful builds and greenish or grayish skin.[fact] Their canines often grow long enough to protrude from their mouths, and these “tusks,” combined with heavy brows and slightly pointed ears, give them their notoriously bestial appearance.[possible racial variation] While half-orcs may be impressive, few ever describe them as beautiful.
A 20 charisma is attractive that is RAW, a half orc with a 20 Cha isn't is opinion. Your opinion at that.
Even your PRD quote describes them as IMPRESSIVE. Also few implies that some would describe them as beautiful. In fact Mr. Fishy has a Half-orc female with a high charisma that is described as beautiful.
I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?Hmm... Not that I have noticed.
Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.
See, I don't do it this way. I have the player roll if there is a need to do so, otherwise, I base it on the situation. A merchant will be more disposed to business-like shoppers who appear to have the coin to back up their interest. Will they be repulsed by the snot-nosed, pox-ridden, slouching drool-machine that smells like rotten cheese? Probably. But if that heavy looking pouch on his belt has just the right jingle to it, they will find a way to cope. And when that beauty walks through the door with take-your-breath-away good looks, but skulks around the store casting furtive glances at him, he will probably toss her out of the shop.
I don't punish or reward any stats. I just let the dice decide whenever the player tries to affect a certain outcome.
See, I don't do it this way. I have the player roll if there is a need to do so, otherwise, I base it on the situation.I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?Hmm... Not that I have noticed.
Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.
Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?
Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?See, I don't do it this way. I have the player roll if there is a need to do so, otherwise, I base it on the situation.I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?Hmm... Not that I have noticed.
Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.
It doesn't matter if the NPC thinks he is nice or not. "Niceness" isn't a in-game concept and is just fluff, thus if any NPC doesn't think he is nice solely based on his Charisma stat, then it should have ZERO in-game effect. The only reason for that would be to punish the player for not creating a character the way you think it should be done and at that point, why not just create the characters yourself then?
It doesn't matter if the NPC thinks he is nice or not. "Niceness" isn't a in-game concept and is just fluff, thus if any NPC doesn't think he is nice solely based on his Charisma stat, then it should have ZERO in-game effect. The only reason for that would be to punish the player for not creating a character the way you think it should be done and at that point, why not just create the characters yourself then?Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?See, I don't do it this way. I have the player roll if there is a need to do so, otherwise, I base it on the situation.I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?Hmm... Not that I have noticed.
Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.
Ofcourse it matters what others think. People tend to act based on what they think.
You never think anything about anyone when you see them? I highly doubt that.There is no punishment. No more than allowing a low STR to carry less or a dwarf to move slower.
I'm not telling anyone what stats to give their character. Low stats have consequences same as high ones.
You didn't answer the question.
I didn't even ask you.
It doesn't matter if the NPC thinks he is nice or not. "Niceness" isn't a in-game concept and is just fluff, thus if any NPC doesn't think he is nice solely based on his Charisma stat, then it should have ZERO in-game effect. The only reason for that would be to punish the player for not creating a character the way you think it should be done and at that point, why not just create the characters yourself then?
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. That NPC better judge Cartigan's niceness off his CON.
NPC's should do as they're told or they get the stick.
Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?See, I don't do it this way. I have the player roll if there is a need to do so, otherwise, I base it on the situation.I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?Hmm... Not that I have noticed.
Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.
-2. The NPC finds the way he's standing to be arrogant or rude, or saw him pick his nose, or make a rude gesture. Maybe it's something they can't even define, but there's just SOMETHING they don't like about him.
A good for instance would be Chris O'Donnell. His appearance is not his problem, but while your mileage may vary, I find him to be annoying the moment he steps on screen. Emotionally flat voice and a gamut of emotions ranging from dull surprise to slight constipation. That's a classic "good looks, negative charisma" combination.
Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?See, I don't do it this way. I have the player roll if there is a need to do so, otherwise, I base it on the situation.I haven't read up, but are people still making the hilariously tragic mistake of punishing for low charisma while not rewarding for high?Hmm... Not that I have noticed.
Personally I like to reward high charisma with things like, having NPCs react positively to their appearance, amongst other things.-2. The NPC finds the way he's standing to be arrogant or rude, or saw him pick his nose, or make a rude gesture. Maybe it's something they can't even define, but there's just SOMETHING they don't like about him.
A good for instance would be Chris O'Donnell. His appearance is not his problem, but while your mileage may vary, I find him to be annoying the moment he steps on screen. Emotionally flat voice and a gamut of emotions ranging from dull surprise to slight constipation. That's a classic "good looks, negative charisma" combination.
So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.
-2
The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.
Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.
End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.
So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.-2
The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.
Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.
End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.
Uh. Well. Ok. But that goes same for everyone in the world right? So if no-one in the world likes nice guys I guess you could fluff CHA 7 to look nice. Can't see that happening in too many campaigns though. I'd think it'd tear badly on most peoples suspension of disbelief also.
Uh. Well. Ok. But that goes same for everyone in the world right? So if no-one in the world likes nice guys I guess you could fluff CHA 7 to look nice. Can't see that happening in too many campaigns though. I'd think it'd tear badly on most peoples suspension of disbelief also.
So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.-2
The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.
Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.
End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.
Okay, you're not frelling getting this. Despite the fact that the character is pleasant in appearance, they are slightly off-putting. Something about them rubs people the wrong way. That's why they have a negative charisma modifier.
Have you ever looked at someone and thought, "You know, there's just something I don't like about them?" Yes, you have. Everyone has. That's represented by a low CHA in the game system.
Okay? Sorted? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.
Uh. Well. Ok. But that goes same for everyone in the world right? So if no-one in the world likes nice guys I guess you could fluff CHA 7 to look nice. Can't see that happening in too many campaigns though. I'd think it'd tear badly on most peoples suspension of disbelief also.
So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.-2
The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.
Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.
End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.
Okay, you're not frelling getting this. Despite the fact that the character is pleasant in appearance, they are slightly off-putting. Something about them rubs people the wrong way. That's why they have a negative charisma modifier.
Have you ever looked at someone and thought, "You know, there's just something I don't like about them?" Yes, you have. Everyone has. That's represented by a low CHA in the game system.
Okay? Sorted? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.
Well if you want to be like that, charisma measures appearance. Do you understand english? Good. Sorted.
Well if you want to be like that, charisma measures appearance. Do you understand english? Good. Sorted.Uh. Well. Ok. But that goes same for everyone in the world right? So if no-one in the world likes nice guys I guess you could fluff CHA 7 to look nice. Can't see that happening in too many campaigns though. I'd think it'd tear badly on most peoples suspension of disbelief also.
So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.-2
The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.
Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.
End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.
Okay, you're not frelling getting this. Despite the fact that the character is pleasant in appearance, they are slightly off-putting. Something about them rubs people the wrong way. That's why they have a negative charisma modifier.
Have you ever looked at someone and thought, "You know, there's just something I don't like about them?" Yes, you have. Everyone has. That's represented by a low CHA in the game system.
Okay? Sorted? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.
Except it measures much MORE than appearance. It encompasses the entire impression you make on people. There are plenty of pretty-but-forgettable people. Would they have a low CHA or high? On appearance alone, a high one. On total impression, which is RAW, a low one. Thus, Charisma is not just appearance.
But you know, you play the game however the hell you want.
Well if you want to be like that, charisma measures appearance. Do you understand english? Good. Sorted.Uh. Well. Ok. But that goes same for everyone in the world right? So if no-one in the world likes nice guys I guess you could fluff CHA 7 to look nice. Can't see that happening in too many campaigns though. I'd think it'd tear badly on most peoples suspension of disbelief also.
So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.-2
The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.
Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.
End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.
Okay, you're not frelling getting this. Despite the fact that the character is pleasant in appearance, they are slightly off-putting. Something about them rubs people the wrong way. That's why they have a negative charisma modifier.
Have you ever looked at someone and thought, "You know, there's just something I don't like about them?" Yes, you have. Everyone has. That's represented by a low CHA in the game system.
Okay? Sorted? BECAUSE THAT IS HOW IT WORKS.
Except it measures much MORE than appearance. It encompasses the entire impression you make on people. There are plenty of pretty-but-forgettable people. Would they have a low CHA or high? On appearance alone, a high one. On total impression, which is RAW, a low one. Thus, Charisma is not just appearance.
But you know, you play the game however the hell you want.
It doen't say "a combination of", it doesn't say "an average of" it says: measures. How hard is that to understand. Noooo. Lets start inventing some stuff and insulting people. Lets drag in endless highly debateable subjective wiews of real life people.
I'll sure play how I wan't. Why do you keep posting?
Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?
I'd use -2. But I'd also have to ask why I would do this in the first place. Why would I ever try to limit a reaction to just a person's appearance without also including their general magnetism and everything else charisma includes? Frankly, I can't think of a good reason to do so. Is the NPC looking at portraits of the PC and assessing whether or not he found the PC a decent person?
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
This is not the same things as Charisma measures a character's appearance.
So, if a character as a great personality, strong magnetism, and is a natural leader, but they're ugly, they'd still have a high charisma. If a character has no personality, little magnetism, and no innate amount of leadership, but are a veritable Adonis, they'd still have a low charisma.
You're asking if a character with a low CHA score can be written to have good looks. Yes, yes they can. This is because CHA is not just appearance. Page 17 of the core rulebook.
I'd use -2. But I'd also have to ask why I would do this in the first place. Why would I ever try to limit a reaction to just a person's appearance without also including their general magnetism and everything else charisma includes? Frankly, I can't think of a good reason to do so. Is the NPC looking at portraits of the PC and assessing whether or not he found the PC a decent person?
Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?
Man walks in to a bar, man rides through town, man approaches you in an alley, any number of instances really. When there is only the visual to judge by, and you need to think of a course of action immediately. Then most of what the charisma encompasses can't be drawn upon.
Man walks in to a bar, man rides through town, man approaches you in an alley, any number of instances really. When there is only the visual to judge by, and you need to think of a course of action immediately. Then most of what the charisma encompasses can't be drawn upon.I'd use -2. But I'd also have to ask why I would do this in the first place. Why would I ever try to limit a reaction to just a person's appearance without also including their general magnetism and everything else charisma includes? Frankly, I can't think of a good reason to do so. Is the NPC looking at portraits of the PC and assessing whether or not he found the PC a decent person?
Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?
You'd still use the -2 modifier. It's not situational. It's part of who the character IS.
You'd still use the -2 modifier. It's not situational. It's part of who the character IS.Man walks in to a bar, man rides through town, man approaches you in an alley, any number of instances really. When there is only the visual to judge by, and you need to think of a course of action immediately. Then most of what the charisma encompasses can't be drawn upon.I'd use -2. But I'd also have to ask why I would do this in the first place. Why would I ever try to limit a reaction to just a person's appearance without also including their general magnetism and everything else charisma includes? Frankly, I can't think of a good reason to do so. Is the NPC looking at portraits of the PC and assessing whether or not he found the PC a decent person?
Fair enough. A question though: So when an NPC looks upon a PC with CHA 7, whom the player has fluffed as a nice looking guy, with no other information, what modifier do you use, if you need to roll find out if the NPC thinks he's nice or not?
Agreed.
Man walks in to a bar, man rides through town, man approaches you in an alley, any number of instances really. When there is only the visual to judge by, and you need to think of a course of action immediately. Then most of what the charisma encompasses can't be drawn upon.
I disagree. The way the PC holds himself, his presence, incorporates more than simple beauty and would derive from personal magnetism.
The fact of the matter is charisma is an abstraction. It covers appearance, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and personality all at once just like Dexterity, for example, includes hand-eye coordination, agility, balance, and reaction speed. You use it for any and all of the characteristics it professes to measure. The inherent assumption in the abstraction is that two characters with a 14 Charisma (or a 7 Charisma) have the same net effect on the people they interact with even if one looks better but is less magnetic and the other is more magnetic but doesn't look as pretty or well-groomed.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
This is not the same things as Charisma measures a character's appearance.
So, if a character as a great personality, strong magnetism, and is a natural leader, but they're ugly, they'd still have a high charisma. If a character has no personality, little magnetism, and no innate amount of leadership, but are a veritable Adonis, they'd still have a low charisma.
You're asking if a character with a low CHA score can be written to have good looks. Yes, yes they can. This is because CHA is not just appearance. Page 17 of the core rulebook.
I see what it says. You do not. You invent that it is "a combination of" or "an average of". It doesn't say that. Simply that it measures those things.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Uh. Well. Ok. But that goes same for everyone in the world right? So if no-one in the world likes nice guys I guess you could fluff CHA 7 to look nice. Can't see that happening in too many campaigns though. I'd think it'd tear badly on most peoples suspension of disbelief also.
So you would give the -2 on appearance despite the player fluffing him looking like a nice guy. Some might think that a contradiction, however it comes right back down to bickering about definitions of words. Main thing is, the NPC sees him not as nice, but something negative.-2
The NPC thinks he looks nice, but maybe that niceness rubs him the wrong way. He might even think the PC is up to something, and just pretending to be nice.
Or, he regards the PC as a nice simpleton and doesn't really take him seriously.
End result: Use the same mechanical adjustment for any 7 Cha character, but flavor it to fit the PCs fluff description.
Not at all!
It isn't that the NPC doesn't like nice guys, it's that the NPC doesn't like that nice guy.
A Cha 14 nice guy impresses that same NPC as genuinely nice, and that's why they get a +2 ability modifier to their rolls, instead of -2.
I see what it says. You do not. You invent that it is "a combination of" or "an average of". It doesn't say that. Simply that it measures those things.Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
This is not the same things as Charisma measures a character's appearance.
So, if a character as a great personality, strong magnetism, and is a natural leader, but they're ugly, they'd still have a high charisma. If a character has no personality, little magnetism, and no innate amount of leadership, but are a veritable Adonis, they'd still have a low charisma.
You're asking if a character with a low CHA score can be written to have good looks. Yes, yes they can. This is because CHA is not just appearance. Page 17 of the core rulebook.
In the same way that Strength measures peak exertion, force of impact, and carrying capacity, and that Constitution measures muscle tone, endurance, health, and toughness. ALL the stats are averages and abstracts of their component qualities.
Man walks in to a bar, man rides through town, man approaches you in an alley, any number of instances really. When there is only the visual to judge by, and you need to think of a course of action immediately. Then most of what the charisma encompasses can't be drawn upon.I disagree.
You may. But I maintain that ability to lead and personality can't be seen by sight.
The way the PC holds himself, his presence, incorporates more than simple beauty and would derive from personal magnetism.
These all affect a characters appearance and therefore how she is seen to be by sight.
The fact of the matter is charisma is an abstraction. It covers appearance, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and personality all at once just like Dexterity, for example, includes hand-eye coordination, agility, balance, and reaction speed. You use it for any and all of the characteristics it professes to measure.
Agreed. You use it for any and all of the characteristics the stat encompasses.
The inherent assumption in the abstraction is that two characters with a 14 Charisma (or a 7 Charisma) have the same net effect on the people they interact with even if one looks better but is less magnetic and the other is more magnetic but doesn't look as pretty or well-groomed.
Yes. And neither of the characters is allowed to have more effect that the other in specific circumstances.
What the hell are we arguing again?
That if your character has a low Charisma score, whether or not the player should be allowed to say that they're good looking in terms of appearance.
In the same way that Strength measures peak exertion, force of impact, and carrying capacity, and that Constitution measures muscle tone, endurance, health, and toughness. ALL the stats are averages and abstracts of their component qualities.I see what it says. You do not. You invent that it is "a combination of" or "an average of". It doesn't say that. Simply that it measures those things.Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
This is not the same things as Charisma measures a character's appearance.
So, if a character as a great personality, strong magnetism, and is a natural leader, but they're ugly, they'd still have a high charisma. If a character has no personality, little magnetism, and no innate amount of leadership, but are a veritable Adonis, they'd still have a low charisma.
You're asking if a character with a low CHA score can be written to have good looks. Yes, yes they can. This is because CHA is not just appearance. Page 17 of the core rulebook.
All the stats are abstracts and represent the same exact components. Same STR always gives the same damage bonus, the same carrying capacity, the same skill bonuses. The same CHA always gives the same ability to lead, the same amount of magnetism and the same level of appearance.
|
What the hell are we arguing again?
My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.
Or something.
O.o
IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.
I think having Charisma be a sort of "average" of all these things makes much more sense, personally.
What the hell are we arguing again?My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.
Or something.
O.o
IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.
Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.
All the stats are abstracts and represent the same exact components. Same STR always gives the same damage bonus, the same carrying capacity, the same skill bonuses. The same CHA always gives the same ability to lead, the same amount of magnetism and the same level of appearance.(emphasis mine)
And that is where your assumptions drift off into different territory. The charisma stat mandates no such thing - that a character's Charisma means they are absolutely as magnetic as they are able to lead or look good. What Charisma refers to is how all of those things work together to generate a net result - a modifier or stat level we can use for game purposes. If, in their descriptive text, a PC happens to be described as more magnetic than they are pretty, that's fine and can still be reflected in a high charisma. The same works in the other direction (historical example: Cleopatra--not that much of a looker, yet very charming).
|
|
Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.What the hell are we arguing again?My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.
Or something.
O.o
IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.
Say what now?
All the stats are abstracts and represent the same exact components. Same STR always gives the same damage bonus, the same carrying capacity, the same skill bonuses. The same CHA always gives the same ability to lead, the same amount of magnetism and the same level of appearance.
I'd prefer you make your own refutation argument explaining why her post was such, instead of dodging the question by telling her to look elsewhere.
Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.
She didn't ask a question. She reduced the opposing side to absurdities with the supposition that that would prove it wrong. It's a known real fallacy. (real as opposed to invented 'stormwind fallacy' or 'Godwins law')
Ofcourse it matters what others think. People tend to act based on what they think.
You never think anything about anyone when you see them? I highly doubt that.
There is no punishment. No more than allowing a low STR to carry less or a dwarf to move slower.
I'm not telling anyone what stats to give their character. Low stats have consequences same as high ones.You didn't answer the question.
I didn't even ask you.
Except "How nice a person thinks you look" is above and beyond the rules of the game, which, you know, Str carrying less and a Dwarf moving slower are. A low Str means you get a penalty to Diplomacy, Bluff, and Intimidate (primarily). Your argument goes above and beyond those.
Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.What the hell are we arguing again?My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.
Or something.
O.o
IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.
Which can be a valid debating tactic, as it was used.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence
And that is where your assumptions drift off into different territory. The charisma stat mandates no such thing - that a character's Charisma means they are absolutely as magnetic as they are able to lead or look good. What Charisma refers to is how all of those things work together to generate a net result - a modifier or stat level we can use for game purposes. If, in their descriptive text, a PC happens to be described as more magnetic than they are pretty, that's fine and can still be reflected in a high charisma. The same works in the other direction (historical example: Cleopatra--not that much of a looker, yet very charming).
All the stats are abstracts and represent the same exact components. Same STR always gives the same damage bonus, the same carrying capacity, the same skill bonuses. The same CHA always gives the same ability to lead, the same amount of magnetism and the same level of appearance.(emphasis mine)
I've made no assumptions, I only read what it says. Stats always do give same benefits in PF. Assumption is yours that it is a net result.
There is nothing wrong in describing with a little variance. Describing contrary to the stats is what brings the problems. You can't tell by description weather it would be 6,7 or 8. You can pretty well tell weather its around 7 or 14. Then the story in game start to hapen contrary to description. If you are cool with that, I'm not the one to judge. Everyone answered -2 to my question, that's about good enough for me really. I can't see a nice looking guy receiving the -2, others seem to. Maybe they do, maybe they want to 'win' an argumet. I don't really care.
Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.What the hell are we arguing again?My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.
Or something.
O.o
IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.
Which can be a valid debating tactic, as it was used.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence
Please pay attention. Reductum ad absurdum is a basic logical fallacy. You can really look it up anywhere.
Please pay attention. Reductum ad absurdum is a basic logical fallacy. You can really look it up anywhere.Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.What the hell are we arguing again?My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.
Or something.
O.o
IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.
Which can be a valid debating tactic, as it was used.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequence
Reductum ad absurdum is not an actual Latin phrase. "Look it up anywhere." In the process, learn humility.
Reductio ad absurdum can be used as a strawman. It wasn't used that way.
Continuing from your post on Ash’s other thread:
The tactic of making monstrous posts quoting stuff line by line out of context, argumenting with unrelated stuff and repeating things already covered is unfortunately all too common in the world of internets. I think the idea is to make it impossible to write up an answer. OK I'll bite. Just don't blame me.
That’s not really what I was trying to do, I just like addressing things line by line, it is more organized to me, and more visually pleasing than seeing one giant quote followed by one giant counter argument. The following monstrosity, however, is the best I could do with your post and it's a wall so... enjoy.
You are still trying to separate stuff. Yes, you are percieved negatively as a whole package. Yes, you are percieved negatively on each aspect separately.
So the half-orc is perceived positively as a whole package. I can roll up a CE half-orc Sorcerer with the Abyssal bloodline, the Tusked racial trait, and a 20 CHA and he will be reacted to positively as a whole package? To include being thought of as beautiful by anyone he speaks with? Even though he is a half-orc with enormous tusks and claws? Then later I can get a Quasit familiar and carry him around on my shoulder and since I have a really high CHA people will still react positively to my presence?
Except that I posted several quotes from several portions of RAW that back up my stance, so I wouldn't call it a house-rule, it is a perfectly valid interpretation of RAW.
No you didn't. You posted stats from races and monsters and proceeded to speculate on those. Those things can be speculated all over forever. Nothing in raw says you can separate different aspects from charisma and up some and down some.
Ok so:
1) Dwarves: +2 Constitution, +2 Wisdom, –2 Charisma: Dwarves are both tough and wise, but also a bit gruff. My observation based on an exact quote of RAW here is that nowhere in the description of Dwarves are the described as ugly or monstrosities, but they still get a -2 on CHA. That is, by their description, because they are “gruff” and has nothing to do with appearance. So a Dwarf with max starting CHA can only have 16 but a Half-Orc can have a starting CHA of 20. Are you really trying to tell me that the Dwarf with a maxed out 16 CHA is uglier than the Half-Orc who is described in their description as being “monstrosities” who has a 20 CHA? Because I would say the difference lies outside appearance, I would say it is in the personality side of the CHA stat.
2) Elves get no CHA bonus but Drow do. Drow: +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, –2 Constitution: Drow are nimble and manipulative. Drow Noble: +4 Dexterity, +2 Intelligence, +2 Wisdom, +2 Charisma, –2 Constitution. Noble drow are very agile, observant, and regal. [i]So are you saying Drow are more beautiful as a race than the Elves of light? Because even their own description doesn’t say that, their CHA bonus is attributed to their manipulative and regal natures.
3) Gnomes: +2 Constitution, +2 Charisma, –2 Strength: Gnomes are physically weak but surprisingly hardy, and their attitude makes them naturally agreeable. Is a Gnome more attractive than an Elf? I would say not, yet they get +2 to CHA and Elves do not. The Gnome’s +2 to CHA is directly attributed to his “agreeable nature” not anything to do with appearance.
4) Half Elves, Half Orcs and Humans could potentially have a +2 to CHA, and none of them are considered to be exceedingly beautiful races. Half Orcs are described in their entry as “monstrosities” but suffer no negatives to CHA and could gain a positive CHA.
5) Halfings: +2 Dexterity, +2 Charisma, –2 Strength: Halflings are nimble and strong-willed, but their small stature makes them weaker than other races. Halflings +2 to CHA is directly attributed to a “strong will” and mentions nothing of their appearance.
None of that is RAW? I just quoted from the racial entries. Those entries explicitly say that races described as “models of physical perfection” (Elves) do not receive a bonus to CHA and their max CHA at level 1 is 18, a race that is not described as ugly but as burly (Dwarves) get a -2 to CHA and can have a max CHA at level 1 of 16, and a race that is described as a “monstrosity” (Half-Orcs) can get a +2 CHA if they choose and have a starting CHA of 20. I would say that is pretty blatant RAW to support the fact that CHA does not HAVE to represent physical attractiveness or appearance. Or are you going to tell me how I have somehow wrongly interpreted what is written in the racial stats and decriptions?
I think it's an unbalancing house rule making CHA even weaker and encouraging dumping it, but to each his own.
Not really, either way they will still be perceived negatively. Again, they can be of average or even above average appearance and still be someone you wouldn't want to spend much time around. I have known plenty of people like this, pretty on the outside, but not so much on the inside.
No they won't. Most people you see and meet, you never get to see much from the inside. Also, if allowed to up the outside, you get the benefits from it and then argue your diplomacy covers the inside.
Except that there is no roll for first impressions so it all goes off social skills or a CHA check. So a person with low CHA and high social skills can still get positive reactions, likewise a person with very high CHA and low social skills can still get a negative or neutral reaction. Either way it is based on numbers not the fact that the Player wants to RP it a certain way. You could also roll a straight CHA check every time the PC meets a new NPC in which case even if they RP an attractive character they will still take the negative hit for first impression based on a low CHA check. Any way you roll it, it is still based on the actual numbers. RP doesn’t change that, it is just the representation the player wants to portray.
I'm saying both. Low is low. If you have low charisma, you have 'low' appearance and 'low' personality.
So then the opposite must be true. High CHA means beautiful appearance and attractive personality? Then again, explain an attractive Orc. Explain to me an attractive Ancient Black Dragon. Or better yet, explain to me an attractive Green Hag (CHA 14: “Knots of dark, moldering hair spill over the features of this sickly, thin, green-skinned crone”.), Sea Hag (CHA 15: “Hair like rotting seaweed drapes this ancient witch. Loose, algae-colored skin sags off her starved frame.”), or Night Hag (CHA 17: “Grisly fetishes and the rags of once fine clothes hang off the corpse-thin frame of this horrifying, sharp-fanged crone.”). I am unsure how any of their high CHA scores can be seen as a beautiful appearance and attractive personality.
You can make all kinds of hypothetical situations. The fact remains, rules don't support separating those and doing so will lead to imbalance. Debating real life charisma and appearance and their definitions is an endless swamp anyway.
Really? Because according to the RAW examples I have posted it definitely seems there is a strong president in favor of separating appearance from CHA, in both PC and NPC races.
You draw arbitrary conclusions from the stats to back up your case. The conclusions can be drawn any which way endlessly, because they have no parallel in real world. It's all a matter of what ifs and opinions and therefore no use in the discussion.
So here is where you tell me I have interpreted it wrongly. But the stats and the descriptions speak for themselves, I don’t really need to interpret it. CHA certainly CAN be synonymous with physical beauty, but it obviously doesn’t always HAVE to be synonymous. As very explicitly detailed by the stat blocks and descriptions I have apparently misread.
Those that are arguing against me, argue that the impact of appearance can be positive despite the negative charisma. There are many cases where the personality will not have an impact and so in those cases the character would effectively have a positive charisma.
No, it just means CHA hasn’t entered into the equation yet. There is no initial CHA check to get a good first impression from an NPC, although you could house-rule one if you really want to enforce your hatred of attractive PCs with low CHA. RAW says that social interactions are adjudicated with Social Skills, which are affected by CHA so really, the way the Player wants to RP his character doesn’t change those numbers, it doesn’t change the mechanics, it is just a representation.
The rules ofcourse do not allow this. Also it is impossible to totally compensate low charisma with skills as skills require active usage. Diplomacy requires time to apply, disguise requires tools and time, acting requires a conscious effort to portray something you are not.
The only time CHA is used for social interaction in RAW is when Social Skills are employed. There is no initial reaction from NPCs based on raw CHA score. It is a Skill Check which does incorporate your bonus or penalty for CHA. Otherwise no one would ever react initially favorable to Dwarves as a race, while Halflings and Gnomes would be well loved by all as races. Hags would be initially favorable, until you get to know their inner crusty Evil side. Humans, Half-Elves, and Half-Orc could potentially be equally accepted at a first glance. IMO anyone who sees a Human, Half-Elf, and Half-Orc all standing side by side and each with a 20 CHA and says they are equally attractive is just being ridiculous to prove a point. I would say the same about anyone who saw a Night Hag and an Elf girl standing next to each other both with 17 CHA and said, wow look at that pair of hot chicks.
The actual RAW states that CHA measures appearance.
It states that appearance is one of the things it measures. Then the rest of the book and the Bestiary go on to detail several examples of ugly creatures that have a high CHA and beautiful creatures that have a low or average CHA. You are focusing on one word in one sentence that supports your position and not taking everything that is written as a whole.
It's a world of difference if you appearance is positive and communication negative, because many times you don't get to the communication part.
Really? So you’re NPCs walk away from ugly people before they even get a chance to talk. That’s rude. Do your NPCs also go out of their way to hang around the 20 CHA Half-Orc who has dark grey, hairy skin, huge tusks, claws and a Quasit on his shoulder, because he is apparently more agreeable on initial inspection than the 7 CHA Human?
Giving abilities to your character is not FLUFF even though there is no roll always included. I can't fluff wings for my human character to be able to fly. I can't fluff good appearance to my character to have a positive impact on NPCs.
Stats and Skills are not fluff, how you play them and portray them is. You can fluff your wings any way you like when your character sheet says you grow wings and have a fly speed. You can also fluff a good appearance but when the social skills are rolled the negatives to CHA are still going to impact you negatively. It is numbers vs. representation.
It grants a +4 to Charisma and look at the fluff in that spell: "creature becomes more poised, articulate, and personally forceful."
And what you conveniently omitted it proceeds to state: "adding the usual benefits to Charisma-based skill checks and other uses of the Charisma modifier" Which would include appearance as per definiton of PF charisma.
That just means your skills and other CHA based things benefit from your increase in CHA. It doesn’t state anywhere that you become more attractive, you have inserted that yourself.
Now take a look at abilities and spells that affect ONLY your appearance, Disguise, Alter Self and such. You can make yourself as beautiful as you like with a good enough Disguise check or an Illusion spell, but that doesn't do anything for your Charisma does it?
Reading through Alter Self and Disguise, they say nothing about making you appear better or worse to others. Just different.
My mistake, I meant Disguise Self which does mention changing your appearance and can be used in conjunction with the mundane Disguise skill, and my point stands, you can alter your appearance in great detail and presumably make yourself more physically attractive by doing so but it still isn’t going to change your CHA. While Eagle’s Splendor, which doesn’t mention physical appearance, give you a CHA bonus.
Take for instance a high CHA half-orc Sorcerer. Is the "half-orc" a beautiful creature because he starts out at level 1 with a 20 in CHA? My guess is no.
Back to the inter species attractiveness then? A 20 cha half orc could be beautifu/hansome to other half orcs. He's appearance would impact positively upon other similar races. Ofcourse a gray ooze couldn't tell any difference between him and a CHA 5 Dwarf.
And you are back to dodging my point by saying you can’t judge the attractiveness of another species. People do this all the time, we judge animals by their attractiveness every day, example: dog shows. CHA bonuses and Social Skills don’t differentiate between races. You are saying your CHA “always” directly affects your physical attractiveness to others. So tell me how the Elven woman believes a Half-Orc with a 20 CHA is more attractive than an Elven man with an 18 CHA. The gray ooze should not care who is more attractive, but NPCs do and you are not saying that CHA effects the way people of your race react to you, you are saying CHA affects the way anyone reacts to you, and your physical attractiveness to them. Stop dodging the point. You have been arguing that a high CHA makes you more attractive to everyone while a low CHA makes you less attractive to everyone. So please explain how the 7 CHA Human is considered uglier than a 20 CHA Half-Orc.
Charisma the ability score is clearly a composite of a large number of factors (appearance included) just like every other ability score is a composite of various factors. It's just that stats like strength are more tangible and easy to understand.
Personally I wouldn't mind having the low charisma PC describe themselves as fairly attractive maybe even very attractive as long as the PC incorporates other traits and mannerisms that counterbalance the positives. Overbearing, obnoxious, or even just something odd about him can all negate a beautiful appearance.
However if the player wants to dump certain stats for mechanical benefit but doesn't want to actually have those negative stats reflect in
roleplaying terms then I think many people are justifiably irked.
I wonder if it would actually serve people's purposes to remove appearance from charisma and actually link it to constitution instead? That way constitution reflects the body (health, resistance to damage, appearance) and charisma would reflect your spirit and how well you interact with others.
In general few people dump constitution and few people make intentional ugly PCs. This way you can explain why PCs are invariably pretty and healthy while some are totally obnoxious and hard to interact with.
I've made no assumptions, I only read what it says. Stats always do give same benefits in PF. Assumption is yours that it is a net result.There is nothing wrong in describing with a little variance. Describing contrary to the stats is what brings the problems. You can't tell by description weather it would be 6,7 or 8. You can pretty well tell weather its around 7 or 14. Then the story in game start to hapen contrary to description. If you are cool with that, I'm not the one to judge. Everyone answered -2 to my question, that's about good enough for me really. I can't see a nice looking guy receiving the -2, others seem to. Maybe they do, maybe they want to 'win' an argumet. I don't really care.
If you're talking about different characters all having a Charisma of 14 having the same net effect on Charisma-based checks, then we're in agreement. But that really doesn't entail making sure that all characters with a 14 charisma are equally good looking, rather that all of the things charisma measures, taken as a whole, produce the same modifier to checks.
The problem you think you're encountering that the rest of us aren't is that you want to pull out a single element of what makes up charisma and try to generate a modifier off that. Appearance. But, being abstract, Charisma really doesn't give us enough information to do that.
Gargantuan chainquote wall
:-D No way I'm replying to that. Seriously.
Please pay attention. Reductum ad absurdum is a basic logical fallacy. You can really look it up anywhere.Reductum ad absurdum. Look it up.What the hell are we arguing again?My understanding is that some say all ugly people are mean and rude and nobody would accept an ugly person as a leader, and all pretty people are nice and polite and natural leaders. Because charisma measures all these things intrinsically instead of as a general average.
Or something.
O.o
IN other words, all people with the same charisma have the same personality in social situations, the same personal habits as they relate to the impression they give other people, and the same "prettiness" or "ugliness" factor.
Which can be a valid debating tactic, as it was used.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to the absurd") is a form of argument in which a proposition is disproven by following its implications logically to an absurd consequenceReductum ad absurdum is not an actual Latin phrase. "Look it up anywhere." In the process, learn humility.
Reductio ad absurdum can be used as a strawman. It wasn't used that way.
I'm afraid the humiliation is yours. Both exist. They mean different things.