| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Popcorn, anyone?
Yes, please! ... Can I make mine Kettle Corn, though?
Also, a house-rule I use in my games a lot is the concept of derivative ability scores - i.e. those scores that come as a result of your other scores. These are basic appearances only: they do nothing for you mechanically, unless the GM rules otherwise. They are only there to govern how you are percieved by others. This allows low charisma people to have great beauty and (like the Justin Beiber example above) can even give people the feel of being "cursed" with good looks. It also allows some degree of separation from CHA and appearance. Anyway, here's my write up (modified for the boards here).
In the player’s handbook, six basic ability scores are given: Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. These are indicative ability scores, from which all other attributes about a character – all of their capabilities – are derived from. These are the best indicators of exactly what a person can or cannot do, and often works that try to add to these often overly complicate the rule systems they attempt to enhance – they place scores where none are needed. That said, in addition to the six prime, or "indicative" ability scores in the player’s handbook, I use three "derivative" ability scores: Beauty, Luck, and Power. As "derivative" scores, these are not meant to replace or even really augment any game mechanics, but rather mostly for use in how a character is perceived by others: is she thought of as beautiful, powerful, or fated to survive?
Again, these are not meant to replace the ability scores found in the Player’s Handbook. Each of them is derivative – they rely on the indicative scores to be derived. These scores are meant more to be used for the DM and Players to better facilitate role playing rather than game mechanics. If there is no place for derivative ability scores in your game, then do not make use of them. Appearance is the most easily replaced by using charisma. Luck can generally be replaced by dexterity or wisdom. Power can most often be replaced by strength or intelligence. Unlike regular ability scores, these cannot be increased every four levels. They are strictly derivative from other ability scores, meaning that as those improve, these will as well.
To determine a derivative ability score, first a character must have all of their indicative ability scores rolled and assigned. Once the six primary ability scores are determined, derivative ability scores can be generated. Take two relevant ability modifiers from the six primary ability scores of your choice, add them together, and add ten. This will grant you a derivative ability score. Each ability modifier can only be used once to create derivative ability scores. In other words, once a primary ability modifier has been used in one derivative ability score, it can’t be used for another. After developing all three ability scores, you may increase the derivative scores – and only the derivative scores – from a pool of 1d3 points plus a number equal to their level adjustment (not racial HD). Each point spent on one derivative ability score is unavailable for the others, however. In general, this is similar to making a modified average of two preexisting scores, though there can be some significant differences in scores by average.
Beauty: This is the physical appearance a person has, the attractiveness that they exude before anyone interacts with them. Ultimately, physical beauty is not charisma. Someone can look rather unattractive, yet be quite persuasive: former President Abraham Lincoln, or a scarred and battered warlord, for example, are not beautiful persons. Others can be incredible sights to behold, but have no persuasive ability whatsoever: that Wench at the bar, or Paris Hilton, come to mind. Still, those who are truly charismatic do at least care for their physical cleanliness and a moderate amount of their appearance. To derive appearance, choose one of Strength (for well built muscular structure) or Dexterity (for swift, graceful movements) and one of Intelligence (for well-used lexicon, fashion knowledge, and a clever ‘look’) or Charisma (for all-around personality manifested in the flesh). When you have chosen one physical ability score and one mental ability score, add them together plus ten and any other bonuses, and you have your appearance. Alternatively strictly use charisma along with strength or dexterity to show physical beauty characterized by muscular development or toning.
Power: Power is the ability to get what you want done, regardless of any difficulties such a problem presents. Usually the ability to handle problems – whether by overcoming through sheer force or enduring problems that would be far too grueling to others – comes with some measure of respect, but respect does not automatically come with authority or persuasiveness. Examples include boxer who persists through all challengers, or the wizard who holds the keys to the universe in his books. To derive a powerful person, whether magical or mundane, choose one of Strength (to brute-force your way through problems) or Constitution (to endure setbacks and still persist) and Intelligence (to derive logical solutions for the most difficult problems that arise) or Wisdom (to be aware of the right thing to do in any issue that comes up). When you have chosen one physical ability score and one mental ability score, add them together plus ten and any other bonuses, and you have your power. Alternatively strictly use intelligence along with strength or constitution to show sheer mental ability backed up by physical brawn or endurance.
Luck: Luck – also often called Destiny – is all about the perception of some greater destiny involved. A persons luck is best measured in the broad flow of a person’s life: the general tendencies that happen to them. Whether accurate or not, some have even likened it to a person’s lifeline or lifespan (they're "wyrd") – when one’s time is up, it’s up, but not ever before. This, really, is what is described by this ability – the fact that regardless of anything else, a person continues to escape death... this time. "It’s not their fate", it’s often said, "to die here and now. Tomorrow, maybe, but not today." To derive how "lucky" a person seems, how much "destiny" they apparently have, choose one of Constitution (to fortunately survive that wound) or Dexterity (to miraculously be out of the way when that explosion goes off) and one of Wisdom (to clearly recognize danger when it arises, and the proper response) or Charisma (to be able to get what you need). When you have chosen one physical ability score and one mental ability score, add them together plus ten and any other bonuses, and you have your Luck. Alternatively strictly use wisdom along with constitution or dexterity to show a clear understanding of one’s "fate" fortified by able body or quick reactions to work within it.
These ability scores are not necessary, but are presented here so as tools for GMs and players alike to be able to play how others perceive a character whether player character or not, in various ways. Further, this tool can be used in any campaign and any setting as a way to help role play and develop the world at large and the people within it.
The Derivative List: what the derivative scores use
Appearance, Beauty, Sexiness:
** Physical: Strength or Dexterity
** Mental: Intelligence or CharismaCompetence, Power, Reliability:
** Physical: Strength or Constitution
** Mental: Intelligence or WisdomFate, Luck, Wyrd:
** Physical: Constitution or Dexterity
** Mental: Wisdom or CharismaThe Indicative List: what the indicative scores can be used for
Strength: Beauty or Power
Constitution: Power or Luck
Dexterity: Beauty or Luck
Intelligence: Beauty or Power
Wisdom: Power or Luck
Charisma: Beauty or Luck
The real reason for doing this is that a) you have an objective way of saying "that person looks nice/hideous" and b) to give role playing a base from which to spring. That really charismatic person: lucky or pretty? That bar wench might be pretty... but her life really isn't very lucky at all. Or "Man that wizard seems powerful, but that bard looks great, know what I'm sayin'?" Etc.
This does not refute the player's ability to define general qualifications about their appearance - someone with a low beauty score can still describe themselves as "tall, strong, and tanned with dark, wavy hair, and heterochromatic eyes" but it's going to come off differently than someone with a higher beauty score. It allows GMs to say "yeah, (s)he looks hot" without having to give every farmhand/barwench a powerful, persuasive personality. A wizard can look good! ... and be as persuasive as dirt.
It's a way of stepping outside GM fiat and giving crunch without making it really relevant to most adventuring plays. It separates the two.
And most importantly: it's completely optional!
It's not something I force on my players, but I've found that, over all, they like it. It allows the strange, decrepit sorcerer to still have a high charisma - people notice his power, not his beauty. It allows the rogue to seem really lucky - he's known for his Xanatos-Roulettes actually paying off, not how many ranks in bluff and sense motive he has. That type thing.
Anyhoo, YMMV, so enjoy, or not.
(Also, agreeing with the "different races/societies/cultures = different standards", with the caveat that I've seen some very beautiful fish or other creatures... I just wouldn't tend to take their word in an argument.)
Pathfinder inherits alot from D&D in terms of legacy, 'Charisma' being one of those things which is kind of annoying as it's a bit ill-defined and the closer you look into it, the more certain questions arise. The same is true of alot of the attributes actually, though people seem to have less problem suspending disbelief that a guy with the muscle mass to bench-press 200 pounds can also be a weak asthmatic who will be killed by falling off a horse(i.e. a character with STR 18 and CON 5...). But I digress,
Appearance as a stat is also problematic for alot of reasons. It can be interesting and we all agree that appearance certainly plays a serious part in society. Being 'beautiful' is an advantage, being 'ugly' is a disadvantage... and the reverse can sometimes be true as well. The question is how to model this. 'Charisma' as a stat has never worked well for this, because it's attached to a host of other things in game that are really disconnected from Appearance. The other problem is that most of the other stats are, to one degree or another, universal, while appearance is really, really not. i.e. A Horse is stronger than a human and should have a higher strength score. A chimp is smarter than a lizard. An octopus more dextrous than a hippo. But 'beauty' or 'attractiveness' or 'appearance' are all really subjective things. There tend to be broad cultural standards for judging aesthetics, but even these are highly flexible. Through in a plethora of intelligence races and things get even more dicey.
In general I think appearance should be treated somewhat subjectively. Is your one-eyed rouge with the scar across his face a hideous troll or a dashing rouge? That might be a subject of charisma. On the other hand, I had a broad thought I'll toss out there;
Appearance is equipment. it kind of makes sense to treat it as such. i.e. A 'look' is something a player possesses... it can be modified through magic(disguise self), by changing outward signs(by shifting outfits, so the king looks the peasant) it can grant subjective bonus's against some but not others, etc.
Just a thought I might flesh out or might not.
When you posted
I got the impression that handling everything on a case by case basis without a mechanic wasn't your preferred way of handling things. So, I attempted to assist. Now, I wish I hadn't made the effort.
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.
This is not me being ungrateful and apologies for coming across like that. The sleepier I get, the less I elaborate.
The case-by-case approach works, but it's not ideal and I'm always on the lookout for better mechanics. I prefer percentile rolls over d20, because of the range difference. Concerning your method:
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.
This covers how susceptible a character is to seduction and anatomic distraction by another character. While I like the approach (something I've never considered), I tend to handle this with one d100 check modified by cultural biases. It seems like we're on the same page, except that I only roll for NPC attraction once a PC shows interest or it just seems like a good time for a plot hook. Thanks for the mechanic and apologies for my late response.
|
Are you asking if the rules of organized play create fairness? I've always thought that organized play was a flawed concept and, so, I've stayed away from it. But, I've heard enough people complain about what happened to them in organized play to call into dispute whether organized play creates fairness.
I'm saying that there does exist the desire for play to be consistent from table to table. Organized play is an example that I'd expect everyone here to be aware of, but it isn't the only one.
GM's being the adjudicator is the final answer, yes, absolutely. But it isn't the first answer. That's the rules themselves. ONLY when everyone agrees that the rules NEED to be changed should fiat really come into play. Any use greater than that is probably unnecessary.
Someone mentioned this earlier, and I think it's the most fair way of doing it.
If you want to use your appearance for in-game uses, then you ought to take a trait to either be particularly handsome/beautiful or particularly ugly. Otherwise, even if you think of your character as one way or the other, there is no benefit or penalty to be gained from appearance.
Whee, another Charisma argument!
No it's not!!
Someone mentioned this earlier, and I think it's the most fair way of doing it.
If you want to use your appearance for in-game uses, then you ought to take a trait to either be particularly handsome/beautiful or particularly ugly. Otherwise, even if you think of your character as one way or the other, there is no benefit or penalty to be gained from appearance.
Ah, the charming trait...
Charming: Blessed with good looks, you've come to depend on the fact that others find you attractive. You gain a +1 trait bonus when you use Bluff or Diplomacy on a character that is (or could be) sexually attracted to you, and a +1 trait bonus to the save DC of any language-dependent spell you cast on such characters or creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I detest the idea of attractiveness being mechanically defined, here's one method that might be more palatable to those that want a mechanic but also want to represent subjectivity:
Appearance: Choose a number from 3 to 18 or roll 3d6. This is not how attractive your character is but what kind of appearance he or she presents. 10 is 'appeals to the average' while 3 and 18 appeal to rarer tastes.
Interest: Choose another number from 2 to 18 or roll 3d6. This determines the type of attractiveness your character is most interested in.
When you want to determine how attracted your character is to another, compare your Interest score to their Appearance and determine the difference between the two scores. If the difference is zero, you've found someone that fits your ideal. The greater the difference, the less potentially appealing they are.
This system does not ever allow characters to be more or less attractive than others. No modifiers are granted to rolls whatsoever except if the GM decides it does by fiat. This just lets you have a character whose appearance is more or less unique, appeals to the masses or whatever. Subjectivity defined simply.
It's not great. I'd hate to use it. But it might be tolerable to those who absolutely demand such a system.
Ah, the charming trait...
The only problem I can see being raised with it is the wording - people might argue they want to play an attractive character that doesn't rely on their looks, as the trait seems to suggest. At this point, it's kind of splitting hairs, but the end result would probably still be the same. I would just rename it to Attractive and toss out the first sentence, just to avoid any silly arguments.
Then maybe a reverse one, that gives you bonuses to intimidate and yadda yadda yadda.
I don't care so much if there is actually a mechanical system in place, I just disagree with using charisma as a dump stat, yet claiming some sort of advantage due to looks. What if Wisdom didn't spell out willpower? "Oh, well, my guy is like freaking Mal, he just doesn't break, cracks jokes while being tortured, just awesome. I think I should get bonuses to my Will Save for that." It's about keeping fair rulings.
I don't care so much if there is actually a mechanical system in place, I just disagree with using charisma as a dump stat, yet claiming some sort of advantage due to looks. What if Wisdom didn't spell out willpower? "Oh, well, my guy is like freaking Mal, he just doesn't break, cracks jokes while being tortured, just awesome. I think I should get bonuses to my Will Save for that." It's about keeping fair rulings.
All the GM has to say is that their looks simply are not enough. What the NPCs are interested in is solely up to the GM. If the Guard is into men, he will not take interest in the woman. If a woman has no interest in muscular men, then your muscles will fail to impress her. Maybe the person you're trying to seduce thought you looked good but when you started to talk you came off way too strong... If a player is going to make that much of a fuss over how them being pretty isn't enough to get what they want, they're likely fuss over a lot more than just that; a player you should either correct or avoid. Appearance doesn't actually come into effect that often in an adventurer's career. Most of an adventurer's interactions will be with enemies, diplomats, and monsters, so a +2 when the fighter hits on the barmaid is whatever; Don't tell them if they're appearance is in effect, they really shouldn't know; they can assume so if they want. It makes it more organic.
Regardless of whether you use a appearance stat, note that while charisma may affect appearance so does every other stat: Strength, Health, Intellect, Sensibility, and Gracefulness. So if anything it should be based on the average of all the stats not just charisma.
|
I don't see why Appearance needs a stat. Just let the player character look however they want to look as long as it's not out of hand. It doesn't have anymore of an effect on mechanics than background, which is how much the GM decides to put an emphasis on it.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.
There are traits to represent this kind of thing. Fluff should not be used to gain mechanical advantage.
While I agree with the people who say that this is coming off like an attempt to undervalue charisma so as to make it a dump stat (I've seen other similar attempts like getting rid of leadership, claiming that pacts should be based on intelligence, etc. - this new attempt doesn't surprise me),
On the other side of debate, there are people who see GMs attributing charisma to things that there is not actually any mechanical support for and trying to punish people for having a dump stat (which is a ridiculous notion as the bad numbers have to be somewhere) by making their character hideous. For some reason effective martial characters must be ugly even though a sorcerer or wizard having using strength as their dump stat is A-Okay. Making a character ugly to punish them for a low charisma doesn't make the game fair, it just annoys the player. It also throws out some concepts that don't make any sense with Charisma=beauty such as the shy but pretty wallflower, the handsome but abrasive fighter, or the scarred and battered war-leader.
I, also, believe that GMs should be allowed to run their tables anyway they want to (subject to their ability to find players who'll put up with their house rules) and have no problem supporting them in doing so. As long as, that is, they keep their nonsense to their own table.
Well I believe that people have the right to discuss their houserules such as Charisma being a stat to represent beauty even if I may find it nonsensical and unsupported.
i agree that a character with low charisma is a wallflower. someone hardly worth noticing.
|
There are traits to represent this kind of thing. Fluff should not be used to gain mechanical advantage.I don't see why Appearance needs a stat. Just let the player character look however they want to look as long as it's not out of hand. It doesn't have anymore of an effect on mechanics than background, which is how much the GM decides to put an emphasis on it.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.
Im fine with that, traits are an easy way to do it, it doesn't need a number but because it will be used to gain advantage their needs to be a rule to govern it
since beauty is subjective. we should allow a PC to look however they wish without some kind of tax. not every form of beauty is accepted by everyone.
and i can understand a cirumcumstance bonus for specific forms of fluff. but it would be highly situational. and the bonus would be relatively minor.
wearing a black outfit at night would require a minimum of a robe, maybe a holocaust cloak. and though it would help visual stealth checks made to hide, it wouldn't help reduce sound.
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. Charisma is everything but physical appearence, and that can be aquated to a combination of Str (for muscular build) and Con (for healthy and handsome / comely appearance).Torquemada had a lot of "charming personality", too. Vlad the Impaler's "engaging demeanor" was legendary.
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.
You and I agree so seldom that when we do, it's like the stars aligning: we must be right.
|
|
since beauty is subjective. we should allow a PC to look however they wish without some kind of tax. not every form of beauty is accepted by everyone.
Just so long as you and everyone else at your table realizes:
In a world where everyone is as beautiful as they wish, everyone is equally ugly.
If, on the other hand, it has any impact on your game world whatsoever, it's going to need a stat.
since beauty is subjective. we should allow a PC to look however they wish without some kind of tax. not every form of beauty is accepted by everyone.Just so long as you and everyone else at your table realizes:
In a world where everyone is as beautiful as they wish, everyone is equally ugly.
If, on the other hand, it has any impact on your game world whatsoever, it's going to need a stat.
Hey, it's fantasy and a player should be allowed to play the concept that they want to; at least that is the concept I thought this game was headed towards, but if it's not the case we might as well forget point buy and go back to rolling 3d6 in order. After all people aren't all equal and we can't just decide what we are born with.
It's not that a character is as beautiful as the character wishes, it's that they appear as the player wishes. The GM already automatically gets to decide how any of the many NPCs and Monsters appear by GM fiat, why take the control of the character's appearance out of the player's hands? It's not like it has much of a mechanical effect unless the player is trying to be a munchkin and the GM bends easily. That same player is going to use their background in exactly the same way and nobody is rolling for background (unless you decide that as a houserule) or making background based on any particular stat.
The real question is why charisma? There are a lot of things that charisma affects that just straight appearance doesn't make sense for. And most of those things you can do invisibly or under a different guise and your charisma doesn't change when those effects are applied. At the same time appearance being based absolutely on charisma doesn't make sense because other things should technically have an effect on appearance such as all the physical attributes and charisma is solely a mental attribute.
I've seen games that did away with Charisma entirely and divided up its properties amongst the other stats. It worked like it was always meant to be.
I tend to like that philosophy more for most games, however, having SOME ability to up stats is ok, and gives players more control. There are downsides to that control- while the concept is "play what you want", I've seen that turned quite quickly into "dump Int and Cha if you are a fighter".
How is that any different than "dump Str and Wis if you are a wizard" ?
But players are as likely (or maybe MORE likely) to envision their character as attractive, in addition to him or her being strong, smart, dextrous, wise, or whatever else. So to me, this is sort of a "grab for free conceptual stuff". in other words, the mechanically correct fighter might have a super low Int (depending on the build), but you don't want to play a dumb guy. The mechanically correct monk has little use for charisma, but you don't want to visualize him as ugly.
So really, you're just punishing them for having a dump stat. The problem is your players, and maybe even you if your players see Cha as so subpar as to not use it for anything other than appearance. Proper social interactions can easily fix that. Charisma in a game with no social interaction is like strength in a game with no fighting action. It's a fantasy game, people like to envision everyone as attractive, unless it's someone they don't like.
Charisma 12 is as pretty as Charisma 8 is ugly, which is to say- a decent amount.
Considering the lowest you can possibly roll is a 3 and the highest is an 18, I have to question how you represent those scores...
why take the control of the character's appearance out of the player's hands?Because appearance, especially physical attractiveness, is a huge edge socially. Studies have shown that attractive people are rated as being smarter, more friendly, more open, more honest, and assumed to be better at any given task. That's a lot of assumptions because someone has symmetric features and other such superfluous things!
So you base it all on Charisma, huh? Charisma affects how smart someone looks, not Intelligence. The Str 8, Cha 17 Sorcerer is probably a better bodyguard than this Str 18, Cha 7 Fighter, I mean look how attractive he is. The other 5 scores don't play any part in a character's attractiveness?
So yes, to a degree, Charisma represents attractiveness, and I don't want to see that change. I like that Charisma is, for that reason, more desirable by players seeking to make a heroic character, instead of it just being "stuff that gets me plusses in situations I can let the other heroes handle, especially the ones that cast spells by having high Cha". Everyone would LIKE to be strong, but you have to "pay" for it. The innumerable advantages of being pretty should also be in some way regulated.
And I quote (myself)
The real question is why charisma? There are a lot of things that charisma affects that just straight appearance doesn't make sense for. And most of those things you can do invisibly or under a different guise and your charisma doesn't change when those effects are applied. At the same time appearance being based absolutely on charisma doesn't make sense because other things should technically have an effect on appearance such as all the physical attributes and charisma is solely a mental attribute.
I think the reason anyone bases appearance off of charisma because it is the only stat that has rule that even hint at it. It's also the only "personality" stat, which is directly tied to social interaction, which is directly influenced by physical attractiveness (or lack thereof).
Some people are acting like it's entirely unfounded or something.
This really comes down to a group-by-group basis, because there isn't -enough- rule support for this sort of thing.
Really, though, if you have a 5 charisma due to dumping it and racial penalty, don't describe yourself as a dashing young lad. It just doesn't fit. The same is true for the reverse: a 20 charisma chick is probably going to be hot, you can't really describe her as unkempt or anything.
Really, though, if you have a 5 charisma due to dumping it and racial penalty, don't describe yourself as a dashing young lad. It just doesn't fit. The same is true for the reverse: a 20 charisma chick is probably going to be hot, you can't really describe her as unkempt or anything.
'dashing' means a lot more than appearance so no 'dashing' can't be pulled off with 5 charisma. But telling someone that her demon blood sorceress with a 20 charisma who has maxed ranks in intimidate must clearly be beautiful by human standards and not unkempt and terrifying is unfair and unreasonable.
Physical attractiveness is specific to race and culture.
Movement (Stealth/Acrobatics) is directly affected by clothing and equipment, but you don't make people determine their clothing and equipment by their dexterity do you?
|
|
why take the control of the character's appearance out of the player's hands?Because appearance, especially physical attractiveness, is a huge edge socially. Studies have shown that attractive people are rated as being smarter, more friendly, more open, more honest, and assumed to be better at any given task. That's a lot of assumptions because someone has symmetric features and other such superfluous things!
So yes, to a degree, Charisma represents attractiveness, and I don't want to see that change. I like that Charisma is, for that reason, more desirable by players seeking to make a heroic character, instead of it just being "stuff that gets me plusses in situations I can let the other heroes handle, especially the ones that cast spells by having high Cha". Everyone would LIKE to be strong, but you have to "pay" for it. The innumerable advantages of being pretty should also be in some way regulated.
I agree with this.
Further, since when is 'use stat, get benefit' taking something OUT of player hands? The whole 'beauty is subjective' thing, now THAT takes it , but buying Charisma doesn't. Think about it, CHA-checks are already defined in the game. Where/how does one find a non-GM-fiat solution for subjectivity?
So you base it all on Charisma, huh? Charisma affects how smart someone looks, not Intelligence. The Str 8, Cha 17 Sorcerer is probably a better bodyguard than this Str 18, Cha 7 Fighter, I mean look how attractive he is. The other 5 scores don't play any part in a character's attractiveness?
Yes, attractiveness lives in Charisma. Where else should it go? Would your line of reasoning not also lead to Int giving a bonus to lift checks, due to knowing how to bend your knees?
Stats are abstract. Trying to accurately represent anything in this game system really needs to have a better payoff than 'it makes more sense'. I mean honestly, why beauty and not hit points or armor class?
Really, though, if you have a 5 charisma due to dumping it and racial penalty, don't describe yourself as a dashing young lad. It just doesn't fit. The same is true for the reverse: a 20 charisma chick is probably going to be hot, you can't really describe her as unkempt or anything.'dashing' means a lot more than appearance so no 'dashing' can't be pulled off with 5 charisma. But telling someone that her demon blood sorceress with a 20 charisma who has maxed ranks in intimidate must clearly be beautiful by human standards and not unkempt and terrifying is unfair and unreasonable.
Physical attractiveness is specific to race and culture.
Movement (Stealth/Acrobatics) is directly affected by clothing and equipment, but you don't make people determine their clothing and equipment by their dexterity do you?
Dashing might not have been the right word to use there, but my point holds.
You're taking a very specific example and trying to apply it to a ruling. You can't really do that, because there will always be exceptions to the rules. A demon blood sorceress will have a high charisma due to her sheer force of personality, her looks might not have anything to do with it. She might have very well constructed an appearance to be frightening. But this is where X is always Y, but Y isn't always X. And don't try to pick that apart: I mean that appearance is dictated from charisma, but charisma doesn't have to include appearance - what I previously said (about a 20 charisma), that might be a case where charisma isn't including appearance. But that doesn't change the fact that -this- example you've raised to support your point is not a good case to judge by.
Movement, all that junk, is handled by armor check penalties, so yes, their clothing and equipment -does- have a place in their ability to do use Stealth and Acrobatics. There's also max dex on armor, which further limits those abilities. I don't get your point here at all.
Dashing might not have been the right word to use there, but my point holds.You're taking a very specific example and trying to apply it to a ruling. You can't really do that, because there will always be exceptions to the rules. A demon blood sorceress will have a high charisma due to her sheer force of personality, her looks might not have anything to do with it. She might have very well constructed an appearance to be frightening. But this is where X is always Y, but Y isn't always X. And don't try to pick that apart: I mean that appearance is dictated from charisma, but charisma doesn't have to include appearance - what I previously said (about a 20 charisma), that might be a case where charisma isn't including appearance. But that doesn't change the fact that -this- example you've raised to support your point is not a good case to judge by.
Movement, all that junk, is handled by armor check penalties, so yes, their clothing and equipment -does- have a place in their ability to do use Stealth and Acrobatics. There's also max dex on armor, which further limits those abilities. I don't get your point here at all.
My point is that while dexterity and equipment is that your dexterity score doesn't determine your equipment and your equipment doesn't determine your dexterity score.
My point is not an exception when there are many cases where beauty and charisma don't correlate.
If charisma and beauty are so heavily intertwined, why can't a character just use alter self and raise their charisma?
It's also rather unrealistic to assume that that how toned a character is and how healthy they are don't determine how beautiful they seem.
The one thing that ever gets quoted is the one sentence that says charisma affects appearance. Like others have said, affecting appearance does not mean it measures beauty. Constructs with their charisma of 1 should be the ugliest things ever by the logic of charisma measuring beauty.
Wait, so my half-elf sorceress isn't an accomplished mage because her spellcasting glands are located in her breasts?
Really, though, if you have a 5 charisma due to dumping it and racial penalty, don't describe yourself as a dashing young lad. It just doesn't fit. The same is true for the reverse: a 20 charisma chick is probably going to be hot, you can't really describe her as unkempt or anything.
'dashing' means a lot more than appearance so no 'dashing' can't be pulled off with 5 charisma. But telling someone that her demon blood sorceress with a 20 charisma who has maxed ranks in intimidate must clearly be beautiful by human standards and not unkempt and terrifying is unfair and unreasonable.
Bold emphasis mine.
There is nothing to argue about this point.
hey guys, i just read this whole thing and you all seem to be dancing around quite a bit so here's how I think of it. In the high schol i go to, not the game i play in, there are attractive people that noone really likes and don't stand out, and there are less physically attractive people who people listen to and respect and notice. not to say one CAN'T be the other, but the two aren't necessarily linked either. I hope a real world example of this (and don't use strength, desterity, or constitution on this argument, i feel the mental traits are more real world comparable (i've never seen people who could do some of the things physically my barbarian could do, while my wizard with int 24 can be like einstein relative to his time period)
i frequently dump charisma. except when it is a requirement for class ability to invest in it. and i did play a game with a psuedo appearance stat. i played a desert bandit who went assassin (single classed human rogue all the way) who dual wielded sickles. i got permission to roll appearance twice, once for before he was burned alive, once for after. he was pretty darn attractive before he was burned, and the dice gods said he only got hotter after he was burned. despite being heavily burn scarred and wearing bandages 24/7. he wasn't able to reproduce because a specific bodypart was permanently lost in the flames. fire spells did double damage to him because of his lack of sweat glands. but he was given fiat psuedo fluff bonuses in exchange, like improved grab, but only with a sickle, and a few situational desert related bonuses. his dump stat was charisma which was still pretty darn good. he had the least specialized rolls of the party, but his rolls were still pretty darn good. 5d6 drop loweest 2, reroll 1s, reroll anything below 12. he had better average rolls, but was the only PC whio started without an 18. his starting stats were all in the 14-17 range. i beleive he had a boatload of 15s and 16s.
My point is that while dexterity and equipment is that your dexterity score doesn't determine your equipment and your equipment doesn't determine your dexterity score.My point is not an exception when there are many cases where beauty and charisma don't correlate.
Any social check done invisible, unseen, or covered
Any social check in an altered form/appearance
Any social check done with a creature of another species (actually happens a lot)
Intimidation Checks
Many of the monsters (just look at the beginning of the thread)
Undead
Anything dealing with magic (sorcerers, oracles, paladins, and cleric's channeling
Using magical devices
Disguising as something uglier than yourself
Handling Animals
If charisma and beauty are so heavily intertwined, why can't a character just use alter self and raise their charisma?...
There is nothing to argue about this point.
I've stated this over and over. I'll try to be as simple as possible in list form.
#1. Appearance is based off of charisma score.
#2. Charisma score is not only based off of appearance. The other things it is based off can be found in the PRD.
#3. A higher score allows for a higher capability within that score's realm but does not necessarily mean it will be played to its full potential at all times.
Because of #1, low charisma equals poor looks. However, any modifiers have already taken place within the stat, so there is no further penalties and no bonuses to be gained. In addition to poor looks, #2 explains how other personality defects cause them to be awkward in social situations or lack a definitive personality in general. Thus resulting in a negative modifier.
Because of #1, high charisma allows for better looks. Again, modifiers have been taken into account based on this. A person with a higher charisma has greater control over their appearance, and that's why the demon blood sorceress can choose to create a terrifying visage instead of a beautiful one. #3 allows for high charisma to be either. Regardless, she is USING HER APPEARANCE in way to gain a benefit. Thus resulting in a positive modifier.
Because of #2, better looks does not necessarily mean it interacts with all things charisma. The list you posted are perfect examples of things where charisma is being used in other ways. There are examples of this in other stats. Consider wisdom: willpower and insight. A character who is described as particularly insightful does not gain any sort of benefit to his willpower.
Because of the existence of 1 and 2, appearance cannot be mandated in a way by pure character concept choice to allow for any mechanical dis-/advantage, because those bonuses or penalties are taken into account with charisma.
Because of the Most Important Rule in the game, appearance -can- be chosen as the player wants (with GM approval), but the player CANNOT expect any sort of benefit for it. GM's can allow for traits or simply give players any benefit they wish, of course, but that's done on a case-by-case basis and is not relevant.
This Trait and This Trait have no CHA requirments yet both say I'm attractive. How Can i have a 1 CHA and be attractive if Appearace is Based off of CHA?
So animals must naturally be really ugly because their scores are generally 6-7. And that Golden Guardian for sure must be burning my eyes with its 1 point in charisma no matter how well it was crafted.
i beleive your physical stats bear more weight on your appearance than your mental ones.
your appearance is a physical aspect derived from your body.
but i would personally allow players to describe thier characters as they please.
i would argue that 18 strength doesn't immediately make you arnold schwartzenegger.
i once played a 25 point human (tian) inquisitor of zon-kuthon. her base strength was around 17ish or so when she joined. she also started with toughness, endurance, 14 constitution and favored class bonus in hit points. she was short, lean and trim, and completely lacking in bust. she had a 7 charisma and her size made her easily mistaken for a 'cute' but bruised, scarred, injured child. she wore a kimono to better blend herself in by concealing her various bruises, injuries, and scars, and walked with a slight limp. but despite what her frame hinted at, she pushed her limits at dangerous extremes. and her incantations were dark bhuddist mantra designed to focus her mind to produce the effect. she was also a bloodthirsty psycho (essentially Gogo Yubari from the near end Kill Bill part 1) and had a job as a jailer, torturer and executioner. people were freaked out by her creepy social tendencies, and she was technically 18 when she started play and 19 when she died.
her strength and constitution were represented in her ability to find the will to keep pushing herself. and she pushed herself, no matter how injured or sick she was. she also had Diehard. her judgements were offensive in nature. because defensive judgements would insult her masochistic nature. and she enjoyed having a few of her bones broken. she borrowed aspects of Irori's teachings into her kuthite ways and tried to blend the two sets of ideals.
she clearly wouldn't be generally considered attractive. and she didn't speak much either. i'm sure nobody would want a wife that spends more time with casts and bandages than without.
I have a CHA 7 character in my Serpents Skull PbP here on the boards..she's a young and lithe half elf ,quite attractive to look at but her personality is abrasive and curt.She's just managed to cause a revolt by the NPC's after 17 days of 'ordering us about like a Hellknight'
Personally as the DM I love her..she gives me something to work with.
If you'd been following this thread, you would have noticed that it was pointed out that low charisma does not equal poor looks. It equals poor attention.One way to think of this is the guy who has Intimidation maxed out. If he were ugly (had low charisma), his charisma would be lower than
than if he were pretty - if your interpretation of RAW is correct.
And that makes no sense, because the big, hulking bruiser with the nose put on sideways and two cauliflour ears with a massive intimidation score is a literary classic.low charisma means that nobody notices the character. The character can be a very pretty wallflower, but the beauty isn't noticed unless she comes out of her shell (gets a charisma boost in terms of this game).
What's that movie where the two high school jocks make the bet that they can turn the wallflower into a star of the school and are surprised once they realize how pretty she actually is?
This entire thread started with stating charisma doesn't equal beauty, but it took off. A lot of people have been arguing one way or another. I'm just trying to reiterate my point. There are two reasons why I think it should.
One, it has the word "appearance" in the definition. It is the only stat that has any word in it tied to looks in the rulebook. People define it different, but you can't just entirely write it off.
Two, it -is- the personality stat. It is what defines your capacity for social interaction. You can't fluff your character out with "SO PRETTY" and try to gain any sort of mechanical advantage. What if I said, "Well, my character used to be a human taxi, so I think my carrying capacity should be treated as if my strength were 2 higher," and didn't take a trait or a feat or anything, it was only on top of all the options the players were already given, yet expected the GM to allow it? More than likely, everyone would come up with something like that.
As far as your example of intimidate goes, you're once again forgetting #2, which has been happening since I explained this. Appearance being based off charisma DOES NOT MEAN that charisma is based only off appearance. Intimidate receiving bonuses from charisma does not only include their appearance. There are more things factored in.
I really don't care how people want to define their character, but it's really dumb to try to use something like this to glean some sort of advantage. It opens up an entire new world into cheesing.
This Trait and This Trait have no CHA requirments yet both say I'm attractive. How Can i have a 1 CHA and be attractive if Appearace is Based off of CHA?
You haven't read my entire post. Taking a trait can easily override the argument, because traits are specifically designed to take fluff and provide a mechanical benefit.
It was stated earlier how much of an edge being physically attractive provides in society. I'm a junior in college with a part-major in psychology, and I can tell you now from the classes I've had, this is INCREDIBLY true. I restate what was said above, they are -perceived- as more adept at handling pretty much everything in life.
I don't care if people want to describe their characters as attractive. I just don't want people trying to gain a benefit from that. It's fluff for advantage, which is exactly the inspiration behind traits.
Vendis, let me focus on the bolded statement from earlier.
'dashing' means a lot more than appearance so no 'dashing' can't be pulled off with 5 charisma. But telling someone that her demon blood sorceress with a 20 charisma who has maxed ranks in intimidate must clearly be beautiful by human standards and not unkempt and terrifying is unfair and unreasonable.
If you think it is legitimate to insist that a player character looks or acts a certain way because of her charisma score, you seriously need to consider what it is you are doing as a GM.
I'm not posting because I have an ideological horse in the Charisma-Beauty race. I'm posting because the notion that a character cannot be hideous but downright imposing when it is a demon-blooded sorcerer, merely because it has a high Charisma, is preposterous. I'll not accuse you of sexism outright, but you may want to consider whether you would reach the same conclusion about a male demon-blooded sorcerer with Cha 20, or a construct with a high charisma.
If my player made it clear to me that her PC had an imposing, but not alluring presence, I would simply conclude "so we're talking more of a Lamashtu bloodline than a Nocticula bloodline, cool. You'll scare the #*&$ out of people."
What you are implying above is that you would say "No, Cha 20 means you are physically attractive." If this is not so, please elaborate.
There is much to consider on this issue, but if you reduce it to the bolded statement and your response, I think the conclusions are plain. If you're GMing and you're telling a person who their character is (outside the mechanics of the game) I believe you are doing it wrong.