|
Because it WILL be used as a tool. "im hot so the guard will pay attention" or "im so ugly the intimidation has to work" will happen.Works only as well as saying that because you're wearing black, you get bonuses to stealth. Which has more legitimacy. The guard could have different preferences than what the character is presenting, and just because someone is ugly doesn't mean they can intimidate the other character, they are more likely to just get attacked violently instead of scaring the other character if their charisma is that low.
Wich varies as the DM rules. According to the rules wearing a tachnocolor clown outfit has no penalty to stealth either but DMs are the ones to make the call and some will fall for an invisable stat of apearance
Apperance in how it affects charisma is not how beautiful the person is it could be if the person appears to be paying attention to you making eye contact and other things. It also could be things like posture and using gestures and emotions propely.
Don't forget Hitler.Godwinned AND relevant!
Torquemada had a lot of "charming personality", too. Vlad the Impaler's "engaging demeanor" was legendary.
Both of these extra examples are also correct. I listed people that are considered good, or entertaining, and in both situations engaging. But Hitler was known as an excellent speaker, and many people use their Charisma to intimidate their followers. There are so many more traits that go into charisma than my small list. That is why skills like Intimidate use the stat as well as Bluff and Diplomacy. The ability to convince people to do what you want with threats, lies, or pleasentries. Three completely different forms of Charimsa right there in the game already. And there are certainly more than just that.
Oh, wait, you were serious??"Charming", "Pleasant", etc. are roleplaying choices. A character's raw ability to get other characters to do what the character wants them to do is charisma - whether the character chooses to be charming and pleasant or frightening and cold.
Yes, they are RP choices, but they are also tied into charisma. Charisma takes into account more than just speach, but also personality traits, be they good ones or bad ones, the charisma shows them in ways that are intrepreted by the player. If a player sees low Charisma as standoffish and shy, and high charisma as open and engaging then that is how they see it. I look at high charisma as engaging, pleasent, and well spoken. You could easily replace pleasent with frieghtening and still have a high charisma. You may be focusing to much on the word choice instead of the actual point, which is exactly the same as what you said in summation just that I did not include the dark and broading side of charisma.
When I picked up the game a few years ago, my first DM explained it like this. Charisma score measures your ability to leverage your appearance. So if you want to seem more beautiful to seduce someone, or if you are an ogre and want to look mean and ugly to intimidate someone your Charisma score helps with those things.
Basically, the higher your Charisma, the more control you have as a PC to self govern your appearance. The lower your Charisma, the more control the DM has to dictate your appearance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Charisma is a charming personality, a motivational speaker, and engaging demenor, and a pleasent person. Martin Luther King Jr had a lot of Charisma, but so does Dane Cook.Don't forget Hitler.
Godwinned AND relevant!
DAMN YOU! You beat me to it.
Excellent example of a crazed stunted balding little troll of a man who convinced an entire nation to uphold an ideal that he didn't even fit.
Charisma if ever there was an living example.
When I picked up the game a few years ago, my first DM explained it like this. Charisma score measures your ability to leverage your appearance. So if you want to seem more beautiful to seduce someone, or if you are an ogre and want to look mean and ugly to intimidate someone your Charisma score helps with those things.
Basically, the higher your Charisma, the more control you have as a PC to self govern your appearance. The lower your Charisma, the more control the DM has to dictate your appearance.
I am not sure how well that description applies. The sorcerer does not have the ability to cast more spells because they are pretty, and the Paladin is not granted the ability to lay their hands on someone or to be more resiliant (saves) because they are attractive. Course, that could work just fine for a Bard considering we love people like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian based on their appearence alone and not their clear lack of talent.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing that Charisma represents is conviction. In the case of the Paladin, when he wades into battle ranting about the vile unholiness of the thing he's smiting, you can't help but believe that a god sent this person to lay the smack down on the offending party.
When a Paladin smiles at you you feel blessed and when he glares at you you want to hide.
Nobody believes in a sorcerer as much as she believes in herself.She can make magic happen, not by careful study, and following well defined formulae but litarally grabbing the forces of magic by the balls and saying, "I want this to happen, and you're going to make it happen."
A wizard casting shield is about understanding the manner in which lines of energy and force interact and intersect across planes to bring about a temorarily solid construct that blocks the incoming attack. It's understanding the math of reality and rewriting the equation. (Intelligence)
The sorcerer looks at the incoming attack and like Neo goes, "No."And reality believes her for a six seconds. (Charisma)
OP I think that using the wight was a bad example for your argument. Actually using any undead is a bad idea. An undead's CHA stat is the measure of their life force and is completely different from the CHA stat of a living creature.
I don't entirely disagree with your post. CHA doesn't decide beauty but the character's shear force of personality. That being said, those characters that are super hot and memorable have high charisma.
It is the square and rectangle scenario. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. All characters with high CHA are beautiful/menacing/horrific/etc. but not all beautiful/menacing/horrific characters have high CHA.
OP I think that using the wight was a bad example for your argument. Actually using any undead is a bad idea. An undead's CHA stat is the measure of their life force and is completely different from the CHA stat of a living creature.
Are they entirely different? Why? Undead have life force, but humans don't?
I must agree that Charisma is more the character's presence and personality than actual physical beauty, though I think physical beauty should add a modifier as opposed to being concidered a large part of it. An extremely ugly creature would still have a high Charisma under this criteria, do to the lasting impression that such an appearance left.Another kind of modifier, maybe ? Since there is no seperate stat for just plain being pretty or ugly, then I would say to let characters just decide how they wish to look. Afterall, extreme beauty or unattractiveness can offer the GM opportunities for hero worship or desire or repulsion to become a good plot device.
Maybe I should have used the Kraken, not the Wight?
A Kraken in a bathing suit ? To each their own, I say. After all, that beauteous creature could be somebody's mother.
Isn't beuaty subjective?
Apperance as used in the core rulebook could be body language and usage of appropriate gestures.
A low charisma character could constantly be portrayed as constantly moving with his hands adjusting armor slowly playing with a copper piece in his hand and doing other things that distract from the message he is trying to send with charisma. I also see low charisma characters may appear nervous in social situations.
A high charisma person could be smiling at the appropriate time and seem happy and convinced.
The point of the Kraken is that it is one of the oldes most pwerful things at the bottom of the sea, it represents everything you do not know about a world in which you cannot survive, it is horrifyingly foreign, terryfying in its power and unless you are immune to fear the first time you see a kraken, no matter who you are, your first thought is ......"Oh $#!+ I'm going to die!"
|
It's the problem with game mechanics.
A skeleton went from having 0 cha in 3.5 to 10 cha in Pathfinder because of the undead rules. Does this mean the skeleton has a better chance of pulling at the bar than the average warrior with a charisma of 8?
Charisma represents personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead and appearance... It's not just appearance, but from a PC perspective can you seperate these things?
Consider Wisdom as a comparison. Wisdom represents willpower, common sense, awareness, and intuition. Can you, from a PC perspective, split these up? An animal normally has an average or high wisdom to represent its hightened awareness and intuition. Can my PC have a wisdom of 7 and still claim a high willpower because he has a shocking intuition and awareness?
As for historical examples, do you consider training, feats and bonuses? So did Hitler for example have a high charisma, or did he have a huge diplomacy score, boosted by skill focus, persuasive feat and a class skill bonus? (Could have a diplomacy score of 9 at level 1 with no Charisma bonus...) Was he good at using magic items? Having watched Raiders of the Lost Arc I think all Nazi's sucked at Use Magic Item :)
It's game mechanics and unfortunately there is no definative answer. If your GM wants you to wear your charisma score then thats just bad luck.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This usually happens because there is no core mechanic governing appearance.
On the contrary, and running in contrary to what several in this thread have said:
This happens because people lack creativity and require a mechanic to govern their character's appearance.
This usually happens because there is no core mechanic governing appearance.On the contrary, and running in contrary to what several in this thread have said:
This happens because people lack creativity and require a mechanic to govern their character's appearance.
Well, personally, I'd like a mechanic (that works) to quantify physical attraction. I've tried for a long time to find a way to make this work and have had no success. Charisma alone doesn't work. Comeliness became a shadow attribute of Charisma and only complicated problems. I've tried other complex approaches that eventually failed.
Now I handle everything on an individual basis and apply bonuses, penalties, cultural biases, and so on as applicable.
|
This is what is called "reaching"Do note that "ugly monsters" having high charisma does not disprove that Charisma = Appearance. Simply put, a monster you call ugly could be very pretty by the standards of its species. For all you know, Kraken are all swimsuit models by their own standards!
I agree with this 100 % I think Cha can certainly be a measure of physical beauty. You can't copare monster/undead etc attractiveness to human atractiveness, because what a human thinks if beautiful, may be diferent than a creature.
In the case of the mindflayer, A mindflayer may be concidered attractive (and have a higher charisma) because of the length of his tentalces... If fact if the players run up against one that has a low cha for some reason, you could describe him as haveng stubby tentacles...
As humorous as it sounds, it works very well)
So all Krakens are beautiful to all other Krakens?
The entire race has a +10 modifier to their CHA stat.
|
|
So all Krakens are beautiful to all other Krakens?
The entire race has a +10 modifier to their CHA stat.
Nope, All Kraken are average to other kraken, because the race base stat would be 20 (if +10 Cha). Charisma is relevant to apearance when compared to another member of the same race. When compared to a race that has a different way of thinking about attractiveness, then it only compares other cross species releveant attributes like Force of personality, etc. Other thing besides appearance that would influence CHA skills.
Unless the other race has the same standards of attractiveness. A human really into kraken is going to find them all HOT..
|
|
This usually happens because there is no core mechanic governing appearance.On the contrary, and running in contrary to what several in this thread have said:
This happens because people lack creativity and require a mechanic to govern their character's appearance.
One man's creativity is another man's fiat. Rules exist to keep things fair. As I said before, if you want to use CHA as a dump stat, don't later try and leverage the advantages the stat usually provides.
I really didn't explain my point at all, I guess. That, or people just wrote it off. I'll try again, with the hopes people either debunk it so I can shut up or stop making the same argument I see as a logical fallacy.
If we say charisma includes attractiveness, that does not mean attractiveness is a factor in all things charisma. Dexterity governs a bonus to AC, due to the ability to dodge, and Sleight of Hand, due to the skill of subtler movements. While they are closely related, they are in fact separate, yet run of the same score. The same exists for krakens and undead and whatnot. Even if their appearance is awful, their charisma is being factored by MORE than simply that.
X is always Y, but Y is not always X, is how I think it goes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This happens because people lack creativity and require a mechanic to govern their character's appearance.
(Not directed at you specifically, Cirno)
An "Appearance" score would add nothing to the game. It is fodder for the neckbeards to leer at a slightly higher number.
We all need to get back to basics: the equal-opportunity stabbing of mythical creatures.
Wich varies as the DM rules. According to the rules wearing a tachnocolor clown outfit has no penalty to stealth either but DMs are the ones to make the call and some will fall for an invisable stat of apearance
Like I said, clothing has more of an effect on stealth than prettiness on diplomacy and lying. Black clothing might provide stealth bonuses in the dark but is a shining beacon in the snow, likewise that technicolor suit might be great for camouflaging in rainbow land. While a straight male guard might listen to everything the bimbo with double Ds has to say, a realistic female guard might as well just ignore her.
Beauty is so very subjective especially if you apply it to all the strange subhumans and monsters across fantasy. Maybe Dwarves like their women with muscles, I dunno. Background can also have an effect on diplomacy and knowledge, such as if your character was born and raised in the town (diplomacy with the town people) or around the region where lots of dragons exist(knowledge of dragons). However, I don't see people calling for a score of how strong your background is.
This happens because people lack creativity and require a mechanic to govern their character's appearance.(Not directed at you specifically, Cirno)
An "Appearance" score would add nothing to the game. It is fodder for the neckbeards to leer at a slightly higher number.
We all need to get back to basics: the equal-opportunity stabbing of mythical creatures.
Oh no, I entirely agree!
People should be allowed to describe their character physically however they darn well please.
You're absolutely correct regardless of what the RAW says about CHA.
let the players describe their character as they please.
appearance is subjective, even among others of the same species.
humans have so many different things they find attractive.
no two humans have the exact same preference, all thats needed is a minor difference.
survey 100 humans from 100 different combinations of cultures and backgrounds, and you will get 100 different opinions.
Not only do I think we don't need an appearance stat, I think that an appearance stat would be actively damaging to the game.
Here's a pretty simple system. Give each character (we'll use an example named "Adam") a score of 1 on a d20. If the character is attracted to a pretty broad range of characters within his race, add 1. If the character is attracted to characters of the main races (rather than just his/her race) add another 1. If the character is a try-sexual, add another 1. This creates his attraction rating.
When another character (we'll call her "Eve") attempts to seduce Adam, (and is of the appropriate sex if he isn't a try-sexual) she rolls a 1d20. If she rolls less than or equal to his attraction rating, she appeals to him physically. Everything beyond this is handled by charisma and charisma skills.
Even this simple system is overly complicated and fails to accurately represent attraction and creates rules bloat as well as slows down something as simple as a diplomacy check. It could be worse though... at least it's not FATAL.
All A is B where A is pretty and B is charismatic
Not all B is A
it's logic. Even a truly dumb, quiet, but unusually attractive person will draw attention.
A hideous ugly comedian will also draw attention.
A average looking person with average personality is not very memorable.
Nymphs have charisma because they ARE pretty. They are so pretty you go blind. Beauty is a power. So is the aura of menacing that surrounded Ivan the Terrible. Two different things that function the same way in a RPG. Just like dexterity has to measure physical flexibility, and speed of reflex, and even eye sight. (remember it influences your ability to hit with ranged weapons?)
Why do people really expect 6 numerical values to sum up a person?
For example I have a massive pain tolerance and can drink half a litre of hard liquor, but I'm also asthmatic. How would my constitution be calculated in d&d? Oh guess what? It wouldn't work.
RPPs are games based on generalizations and extractions.
Here's a pretty simple system. Give each character (we'll use an example named "Adam") a score of 1 on a d20. If the character is attracted to a pretty broad range of characters within his race, add 1. If the character is attracted to characters of the main races (rather than just his/her race) add another 1. If the character is a try-sexual, add another 1. This creates his attraction rating.
When another character (we'll call her "Eve") attempts to seduce Adam, (and is of the appropriate sex if he isn't a try-sexual) she rolls a 1d20. If she rolls less than or equal to his attraction rating, she appeals to him physically. Everything beyond this is handled by charisma and charisma skills.
Should I need to 'randomly' determine how attracted the NPC is to a PC, I'd roll a percentile (d100) and apply any necessary modifiers. Since a stat or formula for physical attraction isn't vital to gameplay, I just react to the PCs' actions and don't worry about it.
Even a truly dumb, quiet, but unusually attractive person will draw attention.
A hideous ugly comedian will also draw attention.
Attention is not charisma though. Let me give an example. Say a pretty young girl is sitting in a club. A random man walks by and notices her. He tries some cheesy lines on her but he's actually pretty low quality and smells of booze. If she had good charisma she could convince him to leave either through trickery or intimidation. Without charisma however, her efforts fall short and he will not leave her alone. A pretty person with low charisma will tell you that being pretty is more trouble than it's worth because they get harassed and stalked and bothered. All the attention and none of the influence is a pretty miserable state. Sure charisma will boost the attention you get, when you want it. Those with really good charisma can also go disguise themselves and get people to not notice them when they want to be left alone.
|
Well, personally, I'd like a mechanic (that works) to quantify physical attraction. I've tried for a long time to find a way to make this work and have had no success. Charisma alone doesn't work.
I find the Appearance score and its associated rules from the Book of Erotic Fantasy work perfectly well.
Well, personally, I'd like a mechanic (that works) to quantify physical attraction. I've tried for a long time to find a way to make this work and have had no success. Charisma alone doesn't work.I find the Appearance score and its associated rules from the Book of Erotic Fantasy work perfectly well.
I find that the more complicated a system is the better it works, and the less attractive it is to new players and the harder it is to explain.
You can play just fine with only three stats. Or I think there are two stat systems. I don't know who'd want a one stat system however.
let the players describe their character as they please.
appearance is subjective, even among others of the same species.
humans have so many different things they find attractive.
no two humans have the exact same preference, all that's needed is a minor difference.
survey 100 humans from 100 different combinations of cultures and backgrounds, and you will get 100 different opinions.
That is true for the most part,
but there are certain characteristics that are common in appearance, or a standard of beauty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness
|
|
Rules exist to keep things fair.Rules don't create fairness. That's because rules are sensitive to the kind of campaign being run. Profession: Sailor can be very powerful or very not powerful.
-GMs- create fairness. They do it through rulings - the same kind of rulings that they'd use for attractiveness.
So I take it, then, that organized play simply does not exist?