There is so much confusion at gaming tables over the conflation of physical attractiveness with how charismatic someone is. I've discussed this at length with experienced gamers who playtest for multiple companies and my opinion has only become firmer that these are two different stats.
The Star Wars Saga book tried to explain to players that charisma can mean either, or, or a combination of both. That seems to be how all the systems that conflate the two try to operate. Well, it's very very messy.
Just have two separate stats. Problem solved!
Some of the most charismatic people in history were quite ugly but beauty is also important to have as a stat because it can make a big difference in terms of how people relate to someone.
...
What happens when you have an 18 charisma and you're ugly? What happens when you have an 18 charisma and you're gorgeous AND charismatic? What happens when you have an 18 charisma and you're really gorgeous but not very talkative? It doesn't seem reasonable to say that the second case should have a higher charisma just because both qualities are equally high, but it also doesn't seem reasonably to treat that person as being equivalent to someone with only one quality at that level. And that is just talking about stats. When it comes to role-playing it's a big mess because the two can be mutually exclusive or not.
It's too messy. While beautiful people are treated better in general, that isn't enough to put beauty and charisma together. A certain German leader, for instance, was very charismatic and also not at all good-looking. There are many more examples. Intimidate rarely is about how beautiful someone is, although there are cases.
Plus, it would be nice to have mechanics for a beautiful character who isn't a face type. A quiet beauty. As it stands now, you're wasting your stat points in the point buy because there's no reward for being beautiful and quiet if you roleplay diplomacy as being about back and forth talk (and bluff as mainly about talk rather than distracting someone with looks -- although bluff is a bit easier to conflate with). An exception would be a sorcerer who doesn't bother with skill points, but even then having such a high charisma makes putting something into face skills seem worth it — at least diplomacy or bluff.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Why does beauty need to be a stat?
Comeliness has put in a couple of appearances in D&D
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Comeliness_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)
but it was back in first edition, originally in Dragon magazine 67.
Here's an opinion on why it didn't stick around:
http://mythopoeicrambling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/why-d-does-not-need-comeli ness-score.html
D&D did this. It didn't really work well, mostly because beauty doesn't need to be a stat and it got overcomplicated.
As for how to handle your scenarios? Roleplay it, if at all. People remark on how pretty the character is as appropriate and the character responds as appropriate.
I've never seen a compelling argument for having this be rollplay rather than roleplay.
|
I've seen a system I really liked for this myself, making it a composite stat based off of the modifiers of the character's Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma.
The logic being that someone with nice strength will have nice muscle tone, dexterity helps with shape and such, constitution so they'll look nice and healthy too, and charisma for that characteristic that you just can't put a finger on.
I've never gotten the chance to apply it in a game, but if my players got on me to figure out something like this, that'd be the system I used to keep yet another dump stat from forming.
If you didn't want to be pretty, you'd have more Fighters/Wizards/Etc with Cha: 7/Bea: 7
My 5 charisma Tiefling Natural Attack Barbarian is sexually attractive. Her low charisma is displayed by her being loud and vicious, with a number of less-than-pleasant traits that eventually had me shifting her down to Chaotic Evil (it was a pirates game so it was okay). She wasn't someone you ever wanted to have in a social situation and she was too busy chomping down on humanoid flesh to be a capable and trustworthy leader.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So naturally, we can't have a stat for it, as beholders are not open content.
But seriously, attractiveness is an extremely subjective thing, so even if there was some mechanical aspect of the game where it was relevant, a single numerical value wouldn't really make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. So naturally, we can't have a stat for it, as beholders are not open content.
Charisma is subjective as well.
But seriously, attractiveness is an extremely subjective thing
And charisma isn't?
The fundamental fallacy at work here is the misunderstanding about Charisma, a mental stat, being "sourced from" physical appearance.
Star Wars Saga Edition:
"A character with a high Charisma may be beautiful, handsome, striking, personable, and confident."
If beauty/handsomeness wasn't part of it then it wouldn't be listed. The argument that is causes confidence still doesn't enable you to call charisma a purely mental stat since it is partially sourced from one's physical stats (the looks that give you that confidence). You don't need to be strong, dextrous, or have a good constitution to have a high charisma.
And, again, some highly charismatic people have been ugly — which shows that influence does not require beauty. Beauty also does not always influence.
They should be separate, although when the game calls for rolls many of the time a player would be able to use one or the other.
I would use a trait for being very attractive (there is charming already), maybe a feat for being a rare extreme beauty.
Burning a trait or a feat just to have a character that looks good seems odd.
We do not need another stat.
That's a matter of opinion. I've seen systems that have dexterity (fine motor skills) and agility (overall body) separated, which is reasonable. A highly agile person would be good at dodgeball but someone with high dexterity could be a good surgeon.
...Why does beauty need to be a stat?
Why do we need charisma to be a stat?
People care about what things look like, immensely. From a roleplaying standpoint it's essential to know what things look like.
And, mechanically, there is a big difference between influence ("charisma") and looks often, but not always. The key here is to implement the stat separation so that there will be as little pain involved as possible. For instance, when being diplomatic with someone, a person with high beauty would attempt to use their looks (which would be more successful in some circumstances than others) while someone who is influential (like that German leader I mentioned) would use verbal skills or something similar (which would be more successful in some circumstances than others).
If everyone wants to play the game as if people are just bricks then I can see now reason for a beauty stat.
I have, for decades as a DM, left the 'physical attractiveness' question in the same bucket as the height/weight/age/hair color/eye color buckets: it is a player choice completely. I don't see why it needs to be tied to the stat at all.
A friend of mine who runs a game I'm in currently has been playing since the first D&D was released and she separates the stats. It works well.
As for the player choice thing... players choose their stats, too. And, the same thing could be said about any stat. Why should there be a stat for anything?
Here's an opinion on why it didn't stick around:
http://mythopoeicrambling.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/why-d-does-not-need-comeli ness-score.html
Thanks for the link.
"My reason is derived from the light that evolutionary science shines on physical attractiveness and the completeness of the standard six ability scores as they stand."
The argument is that the other scores combine to make attractiveness, but that completely falls apart under the mildest scrutiny.
A character can have 16 Str 16 Dex 16 Con 16 Int 16 Wis and 7 Cha.
Another can have 7 Str 7 Dex 7 Con 7 Int 7 Wis and 16 Cha.
You can use the same point buy number to make a character with high charisma and low stats in other areas as to make a character with low charisma and high stats in other areas — precisely the opposite of his argument.
15 point buy examples:
STR: 16 DEX: 16 CON: 15 INT: 7 WIS: 7 CHA: 7
STR: 7 DEX: 7 CON: 16 INT: 8 WIS: 8 CHA: 20
...Why does beauty need to be a stat?Why do we need charisma to be a stat?
Because charisma is the casting stat for a number of different classes. You can completely ignore the fluff of what charisma is supposed to mean and its still important to every aspect of the game.
It seems to me that while beauty and charisma may be very different conceptually, their in-game implications are largely redundant.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...Why does beauty need to be a stat?Why do we need charisma to be a stat?
People care about what things look like, immensely. From a roleplaying standpoint it's essential to know what things look like.
And, mechanically, there is a big difference between influence ("charisma") and looks often, but not always. The key here is to implement the stat separation so that there will be as little pain involved as possible. For instance, when being diplomatic with someone, a person with high beauty would attempt to use their looks (which would be more successful in some circumstances than others) while someone who is influential (like that German leader I mentioned) would use verbal skills or something similar (which would be more successful in some circumstances than others).
This right here is why you do NOT need to separate anything. The really pretty people use their looks during diplomacy, the ugly people use their words... its still a diplomacy stat.
HOW you use the stat is pretty unimportant to the mechanics of HAVING the stat.
All this is going to do is add another stat to the mix that people who don't want it... will never use it.
Honestly, I do not like the idea of 'looks' being depicted as a stat. I prefer to just let people describe their character. If they want to be the Hot but a jerk with a chr of 17 or the Gruff and rugged leader type with the chr 17, either works fine for me.
I believe that 'Hotness' is too varied to BE quantified. Different people are attracted to different things. Some gals like male model types, some like the Clint Eastwood type. Some can't stand facial hair and some love a hairy chest.
Same with guys. Some like the supermodels some like the bookworms. Some like the bigger ladies some do not. Having a 'looks = 18' does NOT mean the same to everyone you run across and giving 'situational modifiers' for everyone you come across is just going to be tedious.
Frankly having CHR = total package is really streamlined.
If everyone wants to play the game as if people are just bricks then I can see no reason for a beauty stat.I have, for decades as a DM, left the 'physical attractiveness' question in the same bucket as the height/weight/age/hair color/eye color buckets: it is a player choice completely. I don't see why it needs to be tied to the stat at all.A friend of mine who runs a game I'm in currently has been playing since the first D&D was released and she separates the stats. It works well.
As for the player choice thing... players choose their stats, too. And, the same thing could be said about any stat. Why should there be a stat for anything?
Do you give extra build points for the added stat? Are there any mechanical benefits to putting your precious points in it? CHR is used for intimidate and diplomacy and bluff and perform... what is beauty used for?
Did you just create a brand new dump stat for every character ever? Or will there be any benefit to taking points out of useful stats just to 'look good'?
Honestly, I see fantasy games as a cinematic or Television type of thing. There ARE no 'ugly' characters unless that is what the player decides he WANTS them to be as part of his vision.
No such thing as an 'ugly' elf. There are elves that are JERKS... but they're still nice to look at. You can get a group of actors together for any blockbuster... and the plainest looking one of them all will still have a fan site somewhere with people swooning.
I'd hate to show up with a picture of my character and have the DM look at it and say 'Nope... doesn't work. That's too pretty an elf for what your stats say. You don't look like that. Only for me to reply.... 'but... its the only picture I saw with a polearm..."
...Why does beauty need to be a stat?
It doesn't. You look like whatever you want to look like.
Charisma has zero to do with appearance. Remember that (in D&D) mind flayers had superhuman charisma, and well, I suppose if you're into that tentacle thing they're attractive, but for most people ... which gets us into 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', another reason you can't give appearance a stat.
Book of Erotic Fantasy had appearance as a mechanic and it was alright, especially for a book whose entire contents was focused on sex and sexuality in d20 systems. While you aren't going to have a whole lot of that in a typical game (maybe you do, I don't know, I don't judge) it provided a decent option for GMs and players to consider.
I am more of a fan of treating attractiveness or beauty as a cosmetic stat, much like height and weight in that a creative player can sometimes take those stats and make them meaningful. We already have traits, spells, and feats that affect targets that "could be attracted to your character" so that isn't something new.
As a GM, if you are going to focus your campaign on social interaction and attractiveness then you better give your players the tools they need to be successful. If you have players that want to have options for social interactions based on being attractive, give them the tools and the opportunity to play their characters the way they want to. If you are a player and want to have an attractive character who can use that to your advantage, talk to your GM.
If you must have a number just average Con and dex and/or str to get how fit the character is mixed with charisma for how they carry themselves. Now you have a number without messing up the stat array/point buy system.
Could always run it like Leadership, where your Attractiveness grows more powerful as your character does. After all, a powerful adventurer is going to be attractive in their own right. Don't forget to add your mythic tier!
I might end up parroting a lot of people upthread when saying this, but I don't see the need for beauty as a separate stat in pathfinder—or even as a stat at all. I don't really see it as being part of the charisma stat, although charisma does have a hand in how attractive a character is.
If you want it as a stat in your game that's up to you, but I'm fine with just letting the players say that they look one way or the other independent of stats, and if their looks end up being relevant to something, then that can be roleplayed out, since there's no mechanics in the game relating to beauty as it is.
Charisma-related anecdote:
I draw most of my characters; I like to know exactly how they look when I have to play them. Some time ago when I drew my bard another player commented that he looked quite attractive. This is unusual, because our preferences don't really have much in common, and I was sort of drawing him to appeal to my own taste. As it turns out the other player went on to elaborate that he wasn't actually their type, but he had a look of confidence that made him attractive anyway.
If you ask me, that is what charisma expressed as attractiveness is about. It's not how physically beautiful you are, it's how attractive you are despite or in addition to looks.
I don't think it should be a stat equal to STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA. However, just thinking that CHA = beauty is wrong, by Pathfinder standards. Aasimar have a few racial features (not feats) that states them being "beautifully proportioned" and "graceful". This, I think, is enough proff that you don't have to have high CHA to be beautifully. And there are no rules for an uggly character being less able to bluff or intimidate.
yeah but they have a racial bonus to charisma...
Not all the time. Variant heritages, yo.
On the other side, Tieflings are described as being naturally unsettling and have a charisma penalty for it, but are usually drawn to be pretty dang sexy. Because what is even the point of having demons if they're not gonna be hot.
I don't think it should be a stat equal to STR/DEX/CON/INT/WIS/CHA. However, just thinking that CHA = beauty is wrong, by Pathfinder standards. Aasimar have a few racial features (not feats) that states them being "beautifully proportioned" and "graceful". This, I think, is enough proff that you don't have to have high CHA to be beautifully. And there are no rules for an uggly character being less able to bluff or intimidate.yeah but they have a racial bonus to charisma...
Not all of them though. Archon- and Garuda-blooded aasimars get a racial bonus to wisdom instead. It's not even necessarily that their features are more beautiful in themselves, but that they somehow just seem right on that person. To paraphrase Blood of Angels (because I can't be bothered to find it right now), a nose that would be too large on another person, on an aasimar that nose will seem majestic.
Not all the time. Variant heritages, yo.
On the other side, Tieflings are described as being naturally unsettling and have a charisma penalty for it, but are usually drawn to be pretty dang sexy. Because what is even the point of having demons if they're not gonna be hot.
the variants have different fluff than the base, and the arguably least attractive 2 are the only ones without charisma bonuses.
GURPS has extra attractiveness cost extra, and add to reaction rolls. Charisma is a separate ability and also adds. There is a Disadvantage for being unattractive.
In my 2nd edition Runequest houserules I've added Attractiveness as a distinct stat to Charisma, to be used in different situations to using Charisma.
In Pathfinder I'd be happy to use a scaled attractiveness statistic, but not one in the same league as the 'big six'. Maybe have a Trait that means you are above average attractiveness (and add +1/+2 to appropriate rolls where relevant)? You could have an associated Disadvantage of being unattractive.
I should point out that I love detailing and customising my characters. Where such detail would logically improve (or reduce) mechanical effects, I would suggest that it is 'bought' rather than just decided by the player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the arguably least attractive 2 are the only ones without charisma bonuses.
You think so? Imma have to get my book now. Oh, would you look at that. We have four distinctly feminine aasimars representing their heritages, a somewhat androgynous angelkin that I think is also a woman (whom I find to be deeply disturbing visually), and two men representing... oh, lawbringers and plumekith. And neither of them look like they're in their youths either, as opposed to all our pretty young women.
In either case I'd rate the lawbringer higher than the angelkin, and men not commonly being portrayed as physically attractive is an issue that is currently discussed elsewhere on the boards.EDIT: This lovely tiefling lady most likely has -2 charisma (she's likely either a standard tiefling or hellspawn), and she's more attractive than our +2 wisdom aasimars.
And another standard -2 charisma female tiefling drawn to look sexy.
Note that I'm not trying to make that other thread bleed over into this one. I'm trying to argue that charisma and beauty is not the same and that the art for lawbringers and plumekith can't be used as an argument that they are.
the arguably least attractive 2 are the only ones without charisma bonuses.You think so? Imma have to get my book now. Oh, would you look at that. We have four distinctly feminine aasimars representing their heritages, a somewhat androgynous angelkin that I think is also a woman (whom I find to be deeply disturbing visually), and two men representing... oh, lawbringers and plumekith. And neither of them look like they're in their youths either, as opposed to all our pretty young women.
In either case I'd rate the lawbringer higher than the angelkin, and men not commonly being portrayed as physically attractive is an issue that is currently discussed elsewhere on the boards.
yeah i could rant about that too, but i will avoid it. Also all but 1 of the variants with a charisma bonus actually call out that type of aasimar as physically attractive with the exception of peri-blooded. i wouldn't mind some sort of secondary mechanic for attractiveness, but i think to do it with any sort of accuracy would be a headache. Especially with something as suggestive as what makes someone attractive (which is even more muddied by the fact that there is radically physically different races wandering around, seriously look at wayangs)
btw i dont think tieflings should even have a negative charisma stat modifier(i dont believe anybody should actually, but thats a houserule for a different thread) evil outsiders typically have notoriously good charisma, so there offspring sucking at it...doesn't click with me.
I have Charisma as a stat and leave appearance strictly to the player. I've met lots of pretty people that were complete bores.
In my book, appearance helps with relations in the first minute, Charisma in the first day to week, and thereafter it is Wisdom. Appearance is just not worth being a stat - maybe on the level of a talent?
Real life scenarios. Have you ever seen an absolutely stunningly hot person, then gone to talk to them and they had the most annoying personality on the planet? Sure it got them through the door, but if you were a shopkeep, would you give them special discounts if they looked like Jessica Alba, but laughed like Janice?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uMPguqlWhU
Clearly, they have a low Charisma, but where did their Beauty stat land them? What rolls did they succeed at? The feel-good message here is that in D&D, just as in real life, physical attractiveness only gets you so far, and not far enough to really deserve its own stat.
As a side note, studies show that women find social ability more appealing than physical attractiveness, so for females, at least, a high Charisma makes you sexier no matter what your Beauty stat is at.
Well, a hot woman does get free drinks, among other things. I see the need to separate this, because all of you that are saying beauty has no effect on charisma are exemplifying the type of npc who would not be affected by a high charisma score based upon beauty. However, there are some of us that would shamelessly buy drinks or offer whatever help we could for a pretty girl (or a handsome bloke).
I don't feel like beauty should have it's own stat, however, but rather be a charisma based skill, ranks symbolizing poise and fashion/grooming sense, with a miscellaneous modifier for natural beauty. A successful check against someone gives a conditional modifier to all checks for diplomacy or such things. At GM's discretion, a dazzlingly exceeded check could even provide combat bonuses, forcing an opponent to succeed a will save to attack the PC.
Intentionally ugly players can use this too, choosing to invert their bonuses and add conditional modifiers to intimidate and bluff for scary things instead.
This is my suggestion. Holding true to my typically True Neutral disposition I rarely believe that either side of an argument is without fault. This is, I feel, a good mid ground.
Charisma has zero to do with appearance. Remember that (in D&D) mind flayers had superhuman charisma, and well, I suppose if you're into that tentacle thing they're attractive, but for most people ...
A whole lot of monsters, and not necessarily the prettiest ones, have above average (11+) charisma score. Many a fighter will fight more charismatic ankheg, or hag, or ghoul... The most horrific and nightmarish outsiders have incredible (20+) cha score.
like Zhayne said, high CHA =/= pretty.
I remember someone from the Paizo staff (?) basically saying that high CHA means "more", or "strikingly"
Applied to beauty, a high CHA character becomes "strikingly beautiful". hideous becomes "strikingly hideous". Imposing becomes "strikingly imposing". Average becomes "strikingly ordinary"? (I guss it can be useful when you don't want others to recognize your character)... Whatever you got, high CHA amplifies it to your advantage.
As people have pointed out, Charisma in d20 is not beauty. Sorcerers are not beautiful people. Paladins and Bards are not good at what they do because they are attrictive. Its force of personality and the innate power of spirit.
Really, there ought to be an "exceptional Beauty" feat. I don't even think it should have a charisma requirement.
Pathfinder is fantasy escapism, your character ought to be able to look how you imagine them. If that is as a beefcake or smokin' hottie thats fine. If you want a mechanical advantage from it that seems more like a feat than a stat...
Charisma has zero to do with appearance.
People keep saying that. It's wrong.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.
You even used exactly the same word as the PRD. "Charisma measures a character's ... appearnce" It really couldn't be any plainer.
Beauty is a "part of" Charisma in as much as Carrying Capacity is a "part of" Strength...
Well, let's see what the PRD says about Strength.
Strength measures muscle and physical power.
So, Charisma is as much a measure of appearance as it is personality, personal magnetism, and ability to lead, and appearence is part of Charisma in exactly the same way as muscle and physical power are a part of Strength.
...
I remember someone from the Paizo staff (?) basically saying that high CHA means "more", or "strikingly"
Applied to beauty, a high CHA character becomes "strikingly beautiful". hideous becomes "strikingly hideous". Imposing becomes "strikingly imposing". Average becomes "strikingly ordinary"? (I guss it can be useful when you don't want others to recognize your character)... Whatever you got, high CHA amplifies it to your advantage.
Actually I really like that. It explains how high CHA can help a scary Half-Orc with intimidate at the same time as helping a beautiful Elf with diplomacy or a nondescript human with disguise. (not that one can't use the others, but it still makes sense to me)
I do, however, stand by my beauty as a skill idea for players that want to add beauty as an element in their game.
Charisma has zero to do with appearance.People keep saying that. It's wrong.
Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.You even used exactly the same word as the PRD. "Charisma measures a character's ... appearnce" It really couldn't be any plainer.
I took the liberty of asking JJ about this a while back.
His answer was that Charisma determined how INTENSE and MEMORABLE your appearance was, not how attractive you are.
Hence how Hags and Pit Fiends can be f%+%ing hideous but both have high Cha.
The example given (IIRC) was that of sisters, Cha 10 and Cha 18. Both are "beautiful", but the regal, commanding Cha 18 sister is a lot more memorable than the equally beautiful, but timid Cha 10 sister.
Or the movie starlet style beauty vs the girl next door style beauty. One is more immediately striking than the other.
So you're both wrong. =D
A lot of what you do with charisma could also be described with how good you are at manipulation:
Intimidate: You manipulate others into fearing you
Handle Animal: You manipulate animals into liking you and doing as you want
Bluff: You manipulate your own face, voice and mannerisms to not give away your true intentions
As a casting stat: You manipulate the world
... or how convincing you are:
Intimidate: You convince others that you are a fearsome entity
Handle Animal: You convince animals to like you and do as you want
Bluff: You convince yourself that your lie is true (to quote Sette from Unsounded: "Lyin' ain't about lyin'; it's about pickin' the best world and livin' in it no matter what.")
As a casting stat: You convince the universe to bend to your will
... but they are sort of two sides of the same coin.