Everybody play as they like!
Have you met my barbarian with 4 int, 4 wis and 4 cha?
He chews his one arm, he won´t take shower (odd reason: actually, he doesn´t know, because he can´t think clearly but must be something funny), and looks like prince for night-hags.
Did I mention his huge sword/pole-arm with 20str, 20 constitution and 16 dex? Oh boy can he do amazing tricks like: rolling on ground, give hand... NOT THAT ONE, THE ANOTHER, good boy, good boy and when you yell: attack, he goes and is he fast?
One-handed strong man, who doesn´t know -4 penalty using two-handed weapon as one-handed, but still hacks his enemies
"Ugh?"
@Cartigan wait so wiki and google are accepted research tools, looking for something and not finding it is not the same as proof. Infact your proof that it doesn't exist came from the fact you found it. Admitted on a Questionable site.
@BenignFacist Why does Cartigan get more exclamation points that Mr. Fishy? Mr. Fishy though Mr. Fishy and the BF were cool.
Mr. Fishy Barbarian with a Int 5 and a Wis 7 was named Grogg and he attacked on SIC 'EM and you better point at a target.
.
..
...
....
.....
@BenignFacist Why does Cartigan get more exclamation points that Mr. Fishy? Mr. Fishy though Mr. Fishy and the BF were cool.
Ya know, I noticed the gross injustice, anticipated your fishy feelings and then edited the post to ensure the harmonic balance of exclamation marks was attained for all..
...*before* I read your reply!
::
@Cartigan wait so wiki and google are accepted research tools, looking for something and not finding it is not the same as proof. Infact your proof that it doesn't exist came from the fact you found it. Admitted on a Questionable site.
Wikipedia has formal citations. And Google is beneficial in identifying percentage and locations of usage.
.
..
...
....
.....
If we were any more off topic we'd wouldn't be..
Wait, what are we talking about?
I thought the burden of proof was on the one claiming something exists.
It was found. The source was questionable but it was found.
I thought the burden of proof was on the one claiming something exists.It was found. The source was questionable but it was found.
...but can we prove that the proof is actually proof?
Charisma does not equal bueaty.<rhetorical question> Really is your character hotter at venerable age? </rhetorical question>.
who would want to think you would be more attracted to the average person of venerable age when you are a young first level character. Doesn't this just seem wrong.
|
If we want to talk RAW, where does it say appearance equals beauty? Charisma is how you have an effect on other people, through Diplomancy, Intimidate, and Bluff. An ugly persons looks can have an effect on you. If anything, a low Cha means you are unremarkable and easily forgotten. High Cha means something about you is memorable, either ugly/beautiful looks, or the way you act angers/pleases other people.
|
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.
And looks improving doesn't confuse me as much as perception / memory improving, but that's how the dnd world works sometimes. Really age should be a strict negative modifier.
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.
All the argument saying "RAW says if you have low Charisma, you are ugly!" are wrong solely because Charisma, as a stat, does not solely consist of appearance. The continued argument that Charisma defines your looks is flat out incorrect because it is a metastat consisting of multiple items, of which looks is one but not the only one.
Balors and Beholders are likable? :P
They are magnificent bastards ;)
Balors and Beholders are likable? :P
No. In fact, Beholders are some of the most beautiful creatures in the world with their single bulbous eye above a gaping maw of pointy teeth, especially with the tendrils flailing off the giant eye that have their own eyes.
High Charisma is attractive or Awe inspiring. High charisma provokes a reaction from others, a low stat is harder to control that reaction.
As to the RAW agruement, looks are part of charisma not denying that. But you are. A low charisma would not have a striking appearance [good or bad]. Where as a high charisma would have striking looks [beautiful or hideous].
Balors and Beholders are likable? :P
Sorry, my bad. Correction: likable and/or posessed of a presence truly terrible to behold.
No pun intended. ;)
No. In fact, Beholders are some of the most beautiful creatures in the world with their single bulbous eye above a gaping maw of pointy teeth, especially with the tendrils flailing off the giant eye that have their own eyes.
Does that mean there's a special beholder in Cartigan life?
Congrats, Mr. Fishy hopes you have many, umm, polyoptic offspring.The pointy teeth, that's what got Mr. Fishy's Trollop on the line, as it where.
I feel compelled to note that, in my opinion, the reason a lot of monsters have high charismas is entirely mechanically driven. the designers wanted those monsters to have certain abilities (be it sorcerer spells, diplomacy, intimidate, whatever) so they needed to give them a charisma that made it possible. So try not to take that example too far in arguing about charisma and looks. I would also argue that many of these creatures look impressive, if not beautiful.
That said, I fully agree that looks are just a small part of what charisma is meant to represent. But they are a part. So I do empathize to some extent with the OP's main point. While it is conceivable that a character could be hideously ugly and still very charismatic, there should be an explanation for it, meaning some other quality of theirs is so astoundingly compelling and attractive that people are willing to ignore their looks.
The unique thing about physical attractiveness is that it is the one element of charisma that you don't need to get to know someone to make a judgment on. After all, no guy sitting in a bar sees a woman walking in and says: "Wow, what a wonderful set of personality she has!" And, no woman sitting on a beach sees a guy running by says: "Wow, what a rock hard sense of humor he has."
As to the ease with which players can use skills to make up for their Charisma dump stats, I think that is fair enough, up to a point. That represents someone making an effort and an investment to overcome their shortcomings. I note, however, that I find it totally reasonable for a DM to decide that, before any diplomacy skill roll is made, an NPC's beginning attitude might be modified by the raw Charisma stat. For example, Charisma dumper Wizard Willie walks into the bar to chat up the barmaids for info unaware that his clothes are terribly unfashionable, his hair isn't combed, and he has a booger hanging from his nose. Initial attitude might be unfriendly. As opposed to the initial attitude when suave Sorcerer Stan tries the same thing, which might be friendly. In the end, how they do with their diplomacy rolls will determine their success, but I don't think it is unreasonable for a DM to use the raw stat that way.
Finally, for all you Charisma dumpers, I would warn that, unless they did away with that in PF (haven't committed the Bestiary to memory, yet), there are some monsters that have attacks requiring Will saves based on Charisma, rather than Wisdom, as my players discovered to their horror and consternation in a previous campaign.
|
However, Charisma isn't something that is observed just by looking at someone, otherwise players are entitled to know the charisma score of everything and everyone they meet, which is silly
I really must apologise for not making myself clear, because you really aren't getting my point. An NPC may get a feeling about the PC based upon observation of him and his behaviour. The GM (not NPC) can use the Charisma score of the PC to gain an idea of how that NPC might feel about that PC initially.
Lets turn it around, if a GM is roleplaying an NPC with a low charisma well, he may convey that the NPC is nervous, avoiding eye contact and descibing how he is sweating profusely. From these observations, a player may get an initial impression of the NPC, and may adjust their initial attitude to the NPC acordingly. All of this without the GM revealing the NPC's charisma.
Now, if a player is roleplaying is character's charisma well, the GM could reasonably determine his NPCs initial attutude in response to that in the same way. And (and this is the important thing) as a shortcut to this, or because the player isn't choosing to, or isn't capable of, roleplaying particularly indepth, the GM may simply get an idea of how the NPC would react based upon the PC's charisma.
And all I am suggesting is that it isn't a bad idea if a GM wants to take Charisma into consideration when determining an NPC's attitude along with all the other factors such as reputation, the situation in which he meets the NPC, and the acts he performs in front of the NPC.
And I am saying that in most situations, all those other factors will likely be more important and overriding than the charisma factor, but where those other factors aren't really significant (e.g. the NPC has no idea of the PC's reputation, the PC has simply walked up to the NPC etc) then, if the GM wants he could choose to use Charisma to help determine starting attutude.
and always will be silly because you end up with Order of the Stick world (which is very humorous but silly) where people look at people and go "Oh, I won't like him, he's got an 8 charisma; let's avoid him."
Hopefully I have explained this enough to convey that this isn't what is happening - but if you don't get it by now I don't think I will ever be able to convey it to you in a manner you wil understand.
I've never suggested otherwise. In fact, I noted that based on reputation, actions, deeds, and circumstances that starting attitudes of NPCs are really just common sense things. If the NPC has no reason to care or dislike the PC by default then they're Indifferent.
No, I know you have never suggested otherwise and that is the point, if you can accept that a person's reputation, actions and deeds can have an effect, then surely you can see how his observable behaviour based on his charisma may also have an effect - someone approaching you on the street looking shifty, twitching, not making eye contact and getting too close is likely to instill a different attitude in you than someone who confidently approaches, smiles pleasantly and who retains a civilised distance from you. All of that behaviour are examples of how different levels of charisma may manifest before even a word is uttered.
Likewise, the rule itself creates more problems due to the varying meanings of Charisma
And this is why possibly we are having a disagreement. I am not suggesting a new rule, I am not suggesting Charisma should always determine starting attutudes. This is not a house rule I am suggesting.
ALL I am suggesting is that it isn't a bad idea if a GM wants to take into account Charisma when determine a starting atttitude along with all the other factors - and that most of the time, Charisma won't be a deciding factor as its importance is likely less than reputation and more obvious deeds and actions - however on occassions having an NPC start off friendlier to a high charisma PC is a good way to shine the spotlight on that PC's decent stat.
As to it being spiteful, yes I do believe it is because you're creating a house rule...
Not suggesting a house rule
...to further penalize characters who already have a penalty, and you want them to suffer more. Congratulations, it's a cute excuse.
I would do this on occassion not because I want a player's character to suffer more, but to show the consquences of a player's choice in choosing a stat, to highlight that the is a differnce between a +1 from Charisma versus a +1 from a rank in Diplomacy (just as there is a differnce between a +1 from Strength and a +1 from BAB, even though both add to an attack roll).
And yes, in a conversation about the rules and how they interact with each other, it wrong
No its not, where does it say the GM should take account of a PC's reputation, actions or deeds when determing an NPC's starting attitude? Answer? It doesn't, it is silent on the matter. But you decide they're okay, so why can't another GM decide taking into consideration another factor is also okay? Why is your opinion any more right than that GM's opinion? Answer? Its not, so he is no more "wrong" than you are for taking into account a PC's reputation, deeds and actions.
Especially if you're basing it off a character's appearance
Appearance is just one factor, most of my examples have been about visible manifestations that covers body language mainly with appearance being a smaller factor.
I'm not telling you how to play your game, but I am saying that the house rule is crap.
Its not a house rule.
No, you are inventing a new drawback to punish players with a low charisma.
Its also a benefit remember! But you seem to be forgetting that fact and assuming that I am just a nasty spiteful GM :) Its no more inventing a new drawback than you are inventing one when you decree that an NPC has heard about a PC's infamy and because of that he is unfriendly or hostile.
NOTICE: Even your post says that Story elements should trump this nonexistent rule for adjusting attitudes based on charisma, so if you gave someone a gift or did nice things for them then their attitude would set appropriately, so why even bother taking it out on 7 Cha guy? I mean, just treat them like you would anyone else, story elements included
I never said I would only use Charisma to help determine starting attitude if that Charisma was negative, yes most of my examples to date have focused on a low charisma because the thread is about dumping charisma, but I have also given examples of how a high charisma could give a benefit.
You can also say that more often than not a low charisma has visible manifestations but I want citation. I want you to back it up.
I can't give you one. But then I doubt you can give me a citation that a low strength may more often than not have a visible manifestation either, and yet I imagine you may describe an NPC as being muscular, brawny, scrawny etc.
You seem to feel that Charisma has no visible manifestation or effect in the game world other than when a PC tries to make a social skill check.I'm noting what I see as spiteful because that's what it looks like to me.
If you are perceiving it as spiteful then I have obviously done a really bad job of conveying what I meant. I apologise for that.
Beauty is not objective.
This g&#%$!n thread.
|
An NPC may get a feeling about the PC based upon observation of him and his behaviour. The GM (not NPC) can use the Charisma score of the PC to gain an idea of how that NPC might feel about that PC initially.
I think this is a fair idea. It can be used in so many ways to make the game more enjoyable and help the player deal with the consequences of their stat choices.
For example, if someone has a low constitution, they can roll fortitude saves twice - to symbolize not only that they're more likely to contract a disease or poison if exposed, but they're more likely to be exposed.
Or a character with low strength could have their carrying capacity reduced farther to symbolize that in addition to their reduced ability to carry things long distances, they have a reduced ability to pick things up without injuring themselves in the first place.
Characters with wisdom below 10 should probably roll twice on perception checks and choose the lowest roll, because even if they're able to see whatever they're rolling the check for, they're just not always wise enough to notice it and realize it's important.
Or anyone with a negative intelligence modifier should probably have the maximum untrained Knowledge check they're able to succeed at modified by twice their intelligence modifier - they're just not smart enough to be able to know things that normally intelligent people can know as common knowledge.
Characters can roll a reflex save everytime an enemy hits them, and if they fail, they accidently dodged INTO the blow and the enemy lands a critical hit on them instead!
The cool thing is, these can be made positive for those with high scores, so it's not punishment or "spitefully" changing the rules just to force players to make characters that fit your particular stat preferences. It's simply underlining the natural consequences of your stat choices!
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'm a little late in responding, but I always have more information than that. I always know something about the NPC (job, community, alignment), and I always know something about the PC, and I know what common history they would have had with each other. That gives me friendly or not. Then I roll the appropriate skill to see if the PC gets what they want. (Info, a deal, place to sleep, a hug...)
P.S. I looked through my philosophical dictionary, a list of common fallacies, my notes from 1st and 2nd year philosophy classes, and google scholar for articles. If reductum ad absurdum is a legitimate term, it is a very well kept secret. Most of the rest of the world calls it a strawman.
Beauty is not objective.
This g&&@@#n thread.
Wisdom isn't objective either, objective measures of intelligence are highly debated, etc. If you want ability scores to model real life then you are bound to have various interpretations on what they mean.
That being said Charisma like every other ability score is a gamist construct that does provide an objective measurement of this amorphous thing called Charisma (or Wisdom or Intelligence).
Further it's pretty clear in the description of Charisma that one of the things that goes into the composite is appearance. It's not the sole determinant but it is definitely a component (for right or for wrong).
Other components seem to be force of will, ability to assert your personality, charm, animal magnetism, etc. 3.x in particular with the development of the sorceror and spell like abilities has decided that charisma is inherently tied to presence and force of personality and as such most creatures with spell like abilities have to have good charisma scores even though by most measures they are alien or horrific or disgusting.
I think where some people are having issues with having a low charisma PC with supermodel good looks is that they want all the components of this amorphous construct called Charisma to be within a tight range. They don't really like a bunch of outliers outside of a relatively tight band around the actual ability score. Thus if you are Charisma 7 or lower you not only have a bad personality and poor presence but you are also homely and certain to be "Forever Alone".
Other people are willing to assume that outliers do exist within the composite statistic called Charisma and thus the PC with a low Charisma could have a very attractive visage and the PC with a high charisma could have a bland or even hideous visage. Personally I think as long as the player accentuates various other components of their low charisma through roleplaying it's okay to have a beautiful wallflower, or a highly intelligent person with no education at all, or a person with no common sense still able to deliver meaningful heartfelt bits of wisdom.
Honestly though until more things are tied to Charisma (and no we really don't need a social combat system for D&D - they invariably suck) in a meaningful mechanical way people are incentivized to dump Charisma as long as an attack routine or base defense isn't tied to the score. I suppose going the 4e route and allowing Charisma to be used for Will saves is a decent method of providing incentives for a good Charisma but most people seem to think 4e design ideas are anathema ;)
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 won't flame you. I mostly agree with you. However, I think a lot of very important things are being ignored in this discussion. You mention munchkinism which implies someone is trying to gain something from being handsome; like they just expect the NPCs to love them because they're handsome/pretty.
The thing is, no one ever suggested that on the "dump charisma side". It's been suggested by the opposition, in what seems like a classic straw-man. They constantly are equating a character's appearance with a mechanical benefit that doesn't exist, and they've argued against it vehemently against this non-existent abuse of options, and in an authoritative manner have told people "your character has to be ugly" because of their very questionable interpretation of the RAW - which requires you to ignore much more RAW (such as racial modifiers, creature descriptions, spells, and other applications of charisma).
The line that one crowd is desperately trying to cling to is this one: "Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious."
Now, their entire case is pretty shoddy. As Jess Door pointed out earlier, the logical conclusion of their argument leads to absurdity. Reasoning based on what makes more logical sense vs absurdity is in fact reason, and is a measure of good sense. Ergo, the reading that makes the most sense is probably the correct one.
Their stance would require all innately unfriendly, rude, and/or socially inept characters to also be ugly or at least mundane. Whereas everyone who's naturally confident, well mannered, or just have good leadership must be pretty or memorable in their appearance. This directly contradicts reality. When you have two interpretations of the same rules, the one that makes the most logical sense and/or is correct in reality is generally the one to be used.
(Before anyone starts whining that D&D and reality don't mix, the fact of the matter is that the system is supposed to at least have a resemblance to reality in the context that it is presented. this essay gives examples of what I mean. Just because we have wizards that throw fireballs doesn't mean we have to throw ALL logic and reasoning out the window.)
Meanwhile, our interpretation of the same line is that it is a measurement, but it's a measurement of the combination. Your charisma score would be the average of all those things, so if you're attractive but then have very poor leadership and social graces then you will have a lower than average Charisma anyway.
If you could have 25% of your charisma dedicated to all four aspects, the result would be 25/25/25/25 in Personality, Magnetism, Leadership, and Appearance. Now shifting those numbers to 15%/15%/15%/55% still leaves you with the same charisma, and it still measures all of those things, but it makes more sense in both the rules as they are presented throughout the system and real life. Since this interpretation of the exact same guideline neither conflicts with the system nor logical reasoning, we can clearly see that this is the correct one - or at least more correct than the alternative cast.
That's just logic and reasoning.
Now another thing I'd like to discuss is that the one line of description of the ability score itself that the opposition is clinging onto and bunkering down with is very vague. "Appearance" doesn't even translate as beauty, and is amazingly vague. The dictionary term for "appearance" has been included below for convenience of the reader:
ap·pear·ance
   /əˈpɪərəns/ Show Spelled[uh-peer-uhns] Show IPA
–noun
1. the act or fact of appearing, as to the eye or mind or before the public: the unannounced appearance of dinner guests; the last appearance of Caruso in Aïda; her first appearance at a stockholders' meeting.
2. the state, condition, manner, or style in which a person or object appears; outward look or aspect: a table of antique appearance; a man of noble appearance.
3. outward show or seeming; semblance: to avoid the appearance of coveting an honor.
4. Law . the coming into court of either party to a suit or action.
5. appearances, outward impressions, indications, or circumstances: By all appearances, he enjoyed himself.
6. Philosophy . the sensory, or phenomenal, aspect of existence to an observer.
7. Archaic . an apparition.
—Idioms
8. keep up appearances, to maintain a public impression of decorum, prosperity, etc., despite reverses, unfavorable conditions, etc.: They tried to keep up appearances after losing all their money.
9. make an appearance, to come; arrive: He didn't make an appearance until after midnight.
10. put in an appearance, to attend a gathering or meeting, esp. for a very short time: The author put in an appearance at the cocktail party on her way to dinner.
Use appearance in a Sentence
See images of appearance
Search appearance on the Web
Origin:
1350–1400; appear + -ance; r. ME aparance < AF, OF < LL appārentia, neut. pl. of L appārēns apparent—Related forms
pre·ap·pear·ance, noun
re·ap·pear·ance, noun
sub·ap·pear·ance, noun—Synonyms
1. arrival, coming, advent. 2. demeanor, presence. Appearance, aspect, guise refer to the way in which something outwardly presents itself to view. Appearance refers to the outward look: the shabby appearance of his car. Aspect refers to the appearance at some particular time or in special circumstances; it often has emotional implications, either ascribed to the object itself or felt by the beholder: In the dusk the forest had a terrifying aspect. Guise suggests a misleading appearance, assumed for an occasion or a purpose: under the guise of friendship. 3. face, pretense.
We can see under no specific terms that appearance does not equal attractiveness or beauty. Synonymous with presence in most forms. Being noticeable. So even by clinging to their interpretation on equating appearance with personal beauty, they have no grounds to stand on, because it likely doesn't even mean personal beauty, but could just as easily represent presence, the ability to incite reaction, or to maintain certain perceptions. The ability to influence good perceptions with a strong outward appearance.
This makes perfect sense in terms of the creatures like Hags, for even if they are in a weakened state or somehow compromised, they will likely be able to maintain their appearance, show less or more weakness as desired, and generally manipulate perceptions more easily.
So Mr. Fishy, Lazzo, and the others have nothing to stand on. Even the sentence they're clinging to for dear life doesn't really support their interpretation.
|
Perhaps we need a new thread on incentives for Charisma, such as a Charisma based AC bonus for raging barbarians in no armour (they are that scarey!) or Charisma adding to a fighters bravery due to confidence and personal belief...
That wouldn't impact badly upon those who dump charisma for a specific build but it might make the stat useful for those who choose to use it in a different way.
I posted this elsewhere, but it's more appropriate here. Looking back, it echoes some of Prof Cirno's excellent post on page 2 of this thread.
-----
Charisma is easy to make up for with a few skill points.
No other attribute can be replaced so easily, or so cheaply.
Never mind the fluff, or whether it's attractiveness or magnetism or only one or the other or both. Call it Stat Zeta instead. Stats Alpha through Epsilon are indispensible. For 99% of characters, they cannot be dumped without correspondingly dumping at least one of the character's overall areas of competence.
However,
Charisma is the ultimate "dump stat" -- not primarily because of vague fluff, but because of the mechanics of the game. Unless you're a sorcerer, bard, or oracle, there's no reason in the world not to dump Cha to 7. Practical optimization practically demands it.
And even then the fluff won't help, because it's so vague and so easy to rationalize.
Charisma is easy to make up for with a few skill points.
No other attribute can be replaced so easily, or so cheaply.
Well, Intelligence is easily made up for with a few skill points, too. E.g. a dumb ranger is just as skillful as a smart fighter.
Well, Intelligence is easily made up for with a few skill points, too. E.g. a dumb ranger is just as skillful as a smart fighter.
That's a good point, and it would be equally annoying... but yet I don't see any rangers who dump Int to 7, because the reason you become a ranger instead of a fighter is for the skill points. Pretty much period. Playing an Int 7 ranger is like playing an Int 14 fighter who otherwise has only Bizarro versions of his normal class features (bonuses against only certain critters, instead of with all weapons, etc.). I see LOTS of fighters (almost all of them) who dump Cha. I see LOTS of rangers (almost all of them) who dump Cha. I occasionally see a fighter or barbarian who dumps Int, but it's rare. I never see a ranger dump Int in favor of Cha. Ever.
We might also consider how many skills use the Int modifier, vs. how many use Cha.
I was just thinking about my current character and how it would likely drive some people on this thread crazy.
I'm playing a druid with 8 Charisma. He defecates in public and urinates on things to mark his territory. When he first meets people, he tries to smell them. His way of making friends is to offer people small dead animals or attempting to groom them. He wanders around in the nude when he isn't fighting, and he licks his crotch when he is feeling funky. He does rinse off with fresh water, but he is also likely to roll in the grass and dirt afterwards. If he doesn't like food, he spits it out or sniffs it in disdain. He has fed his lion companion bits of humans until his party made him stop,and he whimpers and hides when people get mad at him. When he does speak in full sentences, they make little sense.
Does anyone seriously think that this guy has to be bad or even plain in order to be an 8 charisma? I figure he has to be fabulously good looking, sweet, and loyal to even make it to an 8. Otherwise, he would be a 2 and driven out of town.
Lets turn it around, if a GM is roleplaying an NPC with a low charisma well, he may convey that the NPC is nervous, avoiding eye contact and descibing how he is sweating profusely. From these observations, a player may get an initial impression of the NPC, and may adjust their initial attitude to the NPC acordingly. All of this without the GM revealing the NPC's charisma.
Now, if a player is roleplaying is character's charisma well, the GM could reasonably determine his NPCs initial attutude in response to that in the same way. And (and this is the important thing) as a shortcut to this, or because the player isn't choosing to, or isn't capable of, roleplaying particularly indepth, the GM may simply get an idea of how the NPC would react based upon the PC's charisma.
First problem I'm seeing is you're telling your players how their characters have to react. You're saying that they WILL have these outward signs of having a low charisma, when really there's no reason they have to. You could be a complete jerk and happily make eye-contact, seem confident, walk up to someone and say "Hey, do you usually dress that badly or are you just trying something new?"
Secondly, if I have an NPC who's nervous, there's probably a reason for them to be nervous. If I decide to give an NPC a quirk such, such as a funny twitch, that's part of the NPCs description or personality and doesn't mean that the NPC has a poor charisma. If I include a sorcerer in my game who uses words in the wrong ways or has a weird slightly crazy twitch, it doesn't mean he's got a low charisma. The PCs might react to him and say "Hey, this guys odd..." but that's no different than a PC walking up and punching out your friend in front of you. Either way, you're evaluating based on actions and descriptions, not "you must be twitchy, sweaty, and nervous because you have a low charisma". That's the worst kind of metagaming in my book.
And all I am suggesting is that it isn't a bad idea if a GM wants to take Charisma into consideration when determining an NPC's attitude along with all the other factors such as reputation, the situation in which he meets the NPC, and the acts he performs in front of the NPC.
And I am saying that in most situations, all those other factors will likely be more important and overriding than the charisma factor, but where those other factors aren't really significant (e.g. the NPC has no idea of the PC's reputation, the PC has simply walked up to the NPC etc) then, if the GM wants he could choose to use Charisma to help determine starting attutude.
And all I'm suggesting is it's stupid. Why is it stupid? Because Charisma is already a factor in how NPCs will react to you. That's pretty much all Charisma does is determine how well people will react to you because of the modifiers to social skills it provides. You're double-factoring. You're ignoring the fact it already gives a bonus or penalty to these interactions. It's like saying "Ok, Fighter's have a perfect base attack bonus, so to show that they fight the best, we're going to let them treat AC as if it were 5 points lower, to represent that their attack rolls are really good." It's ignoring what's already in place.
I'm saying it's a bad idea to arbitrarily decide to make Charisma a deciding factor in the initial attitude of an NPC based on assumptions that aren't inherent in the game, system, or characters, and purely within your own interpretation of what you think Charisma might mean but doesn't mean always. In short, it's redundant, it's limiting, and it's bad mechanics.
No, I know you have never suggested otherwise and that is the point, if you can accept that a person's reputation, actions and deeds can have an effect, then surely you can see how his observable behaviour based on his charisma may also have an effect - someone approaching you on the street looking shifty, twitching, not making eye contact and getting too close is likely to instill a different attitude in you than someone who confidently approaches, smiles pleasantly and who retains a civilised distance from you. All of that behaviour are examples of how different levels of charisma may manifest before even a word is uttered.
I have a friend. My friend is (or was) a low charisma sort. He's an alright looking fellow and he's friendly, but he was very introverted. It tended to be slow to initiate conversations, he became frustrated or embarrassed easily during a conversation, get flustered and speak incoherently (or think he was) and he had a tendency to think you were calling him stupid if you didn't agree or showed him how something didn't work. He was always the guy just outside of the crowd, and often was too shy to talk to people very well. He didn't have a nervous twitch, and he didn't give you an uncomfortable stare or always try to avoid eye contact or any of those other things.
Today, a few years later, he's loosened up. He can be the life of the party, and he's worked on overcoming those shortcomings. He's more comfortable talking, flirting, and making people laugh. He articulates his words better, and he's quite lovable.
He could have easily been stat out as a 7 Charisma character who later bumped his Diplomacy and Bluff through skill points. Humorously, he'd actually make a pretty capable D&D character on paper, since he's the strongest guy I know, one of the toughest guys I know, strong sense of balance and hand-eye coordination, and he's smart and quite observant. If I were to stat him out on paper he'd probably look kind of like this: Str 16, Dex 12, Con 14, Int 14, Wis 12, Cha 7.
It wasn't that people began with an initial distaste for my friend. It's just that he was inept at social graces with most people, and had difficulty with people with a naturally higher charisma (as another of my friends does). He didn't walk up to you like he was going to mug you, but he did have trouble dealing with people.
The current system reflects this well. The proposed idea of setting starting attitudes doesn't, and makes assumptions about the character based on what you say their charisma means, so I will not think that is fine. I will always see that as meta-gaming, foolish, and spiteful, because that is all there is to it for me. You're enforcing your idea of what you think someone else's character should be and behave, and creating new mechanical pros and cons for it when the effect is already accounted for in-game.
The problem with Charisma outside of the charisma based casters and classes that have abilities keyed off of the charisma score is that there really is no functional problem with dumping charisma for the majority of characters. By level 4 or so the impact of talent (ability score) on skill usage is rapidly being supplanted by ranks in the skill and miscellaneous bonuses (such as the masterwork tool bonus). Further because DCs don't really scale with level on the social skills (unlike 4e which is actually a point in 4e's favor in many ways) it's pretty easy to negate any sort of functional penalty.
The only stat that is even close to being as easy to dump is intelligence and that's mainly because the negative to skill points happens prior to racial and favored class skill point bonuses. Beyond the stigma of playing an intelligence 7 fighter there isn't that much difference between a intelligence 7 human fighter getting 2 SP per level and a intelligence 10 human fighter getting 3 SP per level. Even then various threads have indicated that intelligence is still far more valuable to the average PC than charisma.
While I don't necessarily think that double penalties to social skill usage are advisable from a balance perspective I do understand a desire to houserule a system that makes dumping Charisma less of a given. Punitive measures to ensure compliance are probably not the best solution but I can also understand that it's frustrating to come up with good rules that provide additional benefits for having a high charisma without using a weird new subsystem.
Ultimately I think the frustrations with the skill system in 3.x led to the development of the 4e skill system which has a much tighter range band between a good skill check and a bad skill check score. Under that system a good charisma is relevant for an extended period rather than being primarily a low level bonus.
Other solutions would be to have charisma either factor into will saves (either as a replacement like in 4e) or in a composite rating (either average the two together which would decrease the dominance of single ability scores at the cost of making everyone MAD as hell or maybe adding both bonuses to saves which would solve some of the issues of Save DCs outpacing saves). Of course you are going way into houserule territory there.
I never see a ranger dump Int in favor of Cha. Ever.
It must just be me, then. :-)
Looking at the character sheets I have posted on this site using a point buy (and excluding Int-based spellcasters) I get an average Int score of 9.8 -- safely on the dumb side.
Mr. Fishy
That's the third time on this thread you've called Mr. Fishy. Mr. Fishy is flattered...ish, thankfully Mr. Fishy has a trollop at home and he isn't into airbreathers.
Thanks for the name drop. That's three...
You might have had a point but...nonlikey.
You have repeated the same arguement, OK you disagree, does make you right.
Also Mr. Fishy has respond to the Charisma appearance topic and it took a great deal fewer words. It also made more sense. You may play as you see fit. Mr. Fishy doesn't sit at your table.
The number crunch of charisma as a spread,
Personality 2
Per. Magnetism 2
Leader 2
Appearance 14
Charisma as a sum of the average>7
So that's better? OK, go crazy. Question which one do you roll for diplomacy.
I will always see that as meta-gaming, foolish, and spiteful, because that is all there is to it for me. You're enforcing your idea of what you think someone else's character should be and behave.
Oh the sweet sweet Irony.
You might have had a point but...nonlikey.
You have repeated the same arguement, OK you disagree, does make you right.Also Mr. Fishy has respond to the Charisma appearance topic and it took a great deal fewer words. It also made more sense. You may play as you see fit. Mr. Fishy doesn't sit at your table.
Do you have a point to make, or a defense? I nailed your argument's coffin with my last post. Unless you've got a defense, I think that's the end of that.
The number crunch of charisma as a spread,
Personality 2
Per. Magnetism 2
Leader 2
Appearance 14Charisma as a sum of the average>7
So that's better? OK, go crazy. Question which one do you roll for diplomacy.
1d20-2.
I will always see that as meta-gaming, foolish, and spiteful, because that is all there is to it for me. You're enforcing your idea of what you think someone else's character should be and behave.Oh the sweet sweet Irony.
I'm not sure you understand irony. I'm not telling them how to play their characters, I'm saying they don't have to play them a specific way. I was showing that there were problems with using it as a mechanic, and I detailed those problems. I noted that it was problematic in terms of logic and reason.
You can continue to misquote me if you wish. I've said my peace.
|
|
The number crunch of charisma as a spread,
Personality 2
Per. Magnetism 2
Leader 2
Appearance 14
4 categories x average score of 7 = 28.
Assuming appearance = 14, that leaves half of the charisma total (14) to split between the three other areas. Split evenly, that's an average of 4 2/3 points. Very low. But definitely higher than a 2.
Assuming a slightly more attractive dude than average, you could also go with:
Personality: 5 1/3
Per. Magnetism: 5 1/3
Leader: 5 1/3
Appearance: 12
Assuming he's just average looking, which is still much more attractive than his personality is inspiring:
Personality: 6
Per. Magnetism: 6
Leader: 6
Appearance: 10
Kirth apparently forgot my rangers lowest score is Int. :P
Huh? If it's 7 or less, why not be a fighter, then?
|
|
If we want to talk RAW, where does it say appearance equals beauty? Charisma is how you have an effect on other people, through Diplomancy, Intimidate, and Bluff. An ugly persons looks can have an effect on you. If anything, a low Cha means you are unremarkable and easily forgotten. High Cha means something about you is memorable, either ugly/beautiful looks, or the way you act angers/pleases other people.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores#TOC-Charisma-C ha-
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious."
What you listed are Charisma based checks. Checks are specific skills that get enhanced if you also have a high ability score, or are hindered if you have a low ability score.
|
|
If we want to talk RAW, where does it say appearance equals beauty? Charisma is how you have an effect on other people, through Diplomancy, Intimidate, and Bluff. An ugly persons looks can have an effect on you. If anything, a low Cha means you are unremarkable and easily forgotten. High Cha means something about you is memorable, either ugly/beautiful looks, or the way you act angers/pleases other people.http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores#TOC-Charisma-C ha-
"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance. It is the most important ability for paladins, sorcerers, and bards. It is also important for clerics, since it affects their ability to channel energy. For undead creatures, Charisma is a measure of their unnatural “lifeforce.” Every creature has a Charisma score. A character with a Charisma score of 0 is not able to exert himself in any way and is unconscious."
What you listed are Charisma based checks. Checks are specific skills that get enhanced if you also have a high ability score, or are hindered if you have a low ability score.
I'm with TOZ on this one. The more plain and 'ordinary' someone is, the lower the impact their appearance would have on their charisma. People who have features that stand out (even if they stand out poorly) would have an impact.
(Honestly, I don't really like the idea of tying appearance to Cha at all, but this way makes more sense than saying low cha = ugly. There lay all the chicks I know who think they HAVE to have at least a 16 charisma or they kill their characters *headdesk*)
Like it or not, it's in the RAW.
When you choose to tank a skill, the rules are written for that to have a consequence. If your DM is "nice" and lets you not suffer any penalties for tanking a stat, that is between you and your DM. I find it boring when DM's allow players to push the "win" button by not holding them accountable for giving themselves weaknesses, but if it makes you happy, house rule it.
But RAW it effects "...a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance".
For comparison, Wisdom describes a character's willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition, and Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons.
Some people are combat based and some people are more role playing based. Everyone is entitled to have there own game they play. But the rules aren't unclear here.
Stuff (the quotebox cut part of it off and I didn't feel like editing the rest in)Now, you see ciretose, you completely misunderstand me. I like the idea of there being costs to having a low charisma. I just think it's stupid to make appearance one of them. Appearance is more a descriptive facet. It's like saying your sword has a blue hilt or a brown one. It shouldn't reflect any mechanics.
(Incidentally, Charisma seems more logical for will saves than wisdom lol)
EDIT: also, I'll note that 'personal magnetism' doesn't necessarily mean 'pretty' or 'handsome' there have been some VERY magnetic people who weren't anywhere close to what most people consider 'attractive'
Likewise, appearance doesn't even mean pretty or ugly.
I pointed this out in this post, which has yet to be countered, merely ignored.
Likewise, appearance doesn't even mean pretty or ugly.
I pointed this out in this post, which has yet to be countered, merely ignored.
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.
The truth of the matter is that the concepts described by the ability scores are incredibly ill-defined and open to interpretation. To suggest that anyone really has a definitive interpretation of the ability scores seems to be overreaching.
If we look at the verbiage surrounding Charisma from a historical perspective it's pretty clear that at least at one point in the history of D&D Charisma specifically incorporated physical attractiveness.
From 2e Skills and Powers in which Charisma was subdivided between Leadership and Appearance:
Appearance- This measures the physical presence and attractiveness of the character. A character with a high Appearance score would be handsome or beautiful, perhaps even famous for outstanding looks (like Helen of Troy).
Granted the conception of Charisma has changed over time to reflect new priorities within D&D game design. It only loosely influences cohort loyalty whereas it was the major benefit in 1e. It's been modified to include force of personality in order to create new caster types, etc.
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 attractiveness from any ability score whatsoever.