D&D (2024) 2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d

[CapnZapp]

So I have a DM who adores Comeliness. He doesn't really use the rules for it, as near as I can tell, it's more a convenient shorthand for letting a player know how attractive a given character is.

Precisely.

It's such an easy and small and inconsequential addition it's hard to see anything wrong with it.

Adding feats or other actual mechanics would make a far too big deal out of it.

 

[CapnZapp]

Charisma =/= Comeliness (though they are easily conflated)

I just think of Days of our Lives or other soaps, and the difference between Charisma and Appearance, and why one value can't cover both aspects, become clear as day.

There's a lot of stereotypically attractive but plastic and bland people trying to get into the movies. All of them have high Comeliness, few have even average Charisma.

Al Pacino or Paul Giamatti are very successful actors with megawatt Charisma but probably not high traditional Attractiveness scores. (If I may restrict myself to male actors; our sexist society would make it a far bigger faux-pas if I were to namedrop female actresses I consider high Charisma low Comeliness so I'm not going there. Al and Paul can take it, I'm sure.)

 

[Yaarel]

There's a lot of stereotypically attractive but plastic and bland people trying to get into the movies.

All of the attractive people that I know also have Charisma, such as likeable and impactful personalities.

I am a man who responds to a beautiful face. (Other men might focus more on breasts or butt or whatever.)

But it is hard for me to imagine finding someone attractive whose personality was unappealing or didnt mesh.

I doubt a "Comeliness" score without any Charisma actually exists in reallife.

Comeliness as if an ability score seems unable to do anything helpful for the game, yet can go wrong in a number of ways.

 

[Yaarel]

"Very attractive" or "very unattractive" are little more than Advantage to a Charisma check, Persuasion or Intimidation, respectively.


While Comeliness can relate to sexuality, studies show the benefits of attractiveness are more comprehensive and deeper, such as getting declared innocent in a trial.


Moreover, Comeliness requires great effort − working out, restricting diet, health care, skin care, hair care, haircuts, clothing styles, attitude, and so on. Reallife models are dedicated to their work and work hard. They are artists. There is no "score" that comes for free. There are good days and less good days.


An ability score is a less helpful way to quantify attractiveness.

 

[Minigiant]

The thing about Comeliness and Charisma is they aren't the same.

But having a bunch of the first might give you the confidence and calmness to boost the second or the arrogance and apathy to hinder the second.

So it helps, hurts, or can be a wash.

 

[James Gasik]

All of the attractive people that I know also have Charisma, such as likeable and impactful personalities.

I am a man who responds to a beautiful face. (Other men might focus more on breasts or butt or whatever.)

But it is hard for me to imagine finding someone attractive whose personality was unappealing or didnt mesh.

I doubt a "Comeliness" score without any Charisma actually exists in reallife.

Comeliness as if an ability score seems unable to do anything helpful for the game, yet can go wrong in a number of ways.

I know some people like that, believe me, they exist.

 

[CapnZapp]

I doubt a "Comeliness" score without any Charisma actually exists in reallife.

You haven't seen any plastic daytime soaps, I gather

No but seriously, it's a fantasy game. The argument "it isn't realistic" is kind of watered down when you consider elfs and dragons, wouldn't you think?

Still, make of it what you wish. I certainly am not arguing an Appearance score serves all tables.

tl;dr: if you like it, use it. Otherwise, don't. Problem solved

 

[CapnZapp]

The thing about Comeliness and Charisma is they aren't the same.

But having a bunch of the first might give you the confidence and calmness to boost the second or the arrogance and apathy to hinder the second.

So it helps, hurts, or can be a wash.

In other words, a separate variable.

That its possible a high value in one increases the probability of a high value in the other can certainly be true.

However, D&D doesn't track such interdependencies. For instance, I'd be hard pressed to imagine a Str 18 Con 3 person. But D&D doesn't make it any less likely than any other pairing (Str 18 Int 3 maybe?)

But we don't have any complex rules for connecting Strength to Constitution. And we certainly don't need any for Comeliness and Charisma

 

[Yaarel]

You haven't seen any plastic daytime soaps, I gather

On the topic of reallife.

Charisma is necessary for the projection of beauty, in the first place. At the same time, there are many ways to be beautiful, and many ways to be Charismatic.

Some people have high Charisma, but exhibit less talent at acting. For example, I consider Madonna an extraordinarily charismatic artist − with stage presence. At the same time for some people, this presence conveys less well via a movie. Nevertheless, she is arguably "very attractive" compared to "average". It is her Charisma that makes this attractiveness − her visual appeal − effective.

No but seriously, it's a fantasy game. The argument "it isn't realistic" is kind of watered down when you consider elfs and dragons, wouldn't you think?

Elves = supernatural beauty, persuasion, and magical Charm
Dragons = conflation of primal dangers, intimidation, and magical Fear

Still, make of it what you wish. I certainly am not arguing an Appearance score serves all tables.

I understand part of where you are coming from. You are saying, the Comeliness score is like a "numeric portrait" sotospeak. In the same way that player picks an image to represent the character, the player also picks a number to represent a degree of attractiveness.

But then, what seems like a contradiction, the DM will use this number to determine the outcomes of certain encounters, social or otherwise. So there is nothing neutral about this number. It is an actual mechanic in play, and invites the same kinds of meh that the 1e Comeliness score invited.

Ultimately, if the concept of Comeliness is in play at all, it needs to be well thought out, implemented well, and work well within the goals of the 5e game engine.

tl;dr: if you like it, use it. Otherwise, don't. Problem solved

With regard to quantifying the effect of attractiveness, its value might be something like: add half the Comeliness bonus to a Persuasion check, when in sight within 30 feet. So a Comeliness 20 is +5, divided by two adds +2 (or +3) to a Persuasion check, in addition to Charisma.

In other words, it is alot like Advantage to a Persuasion check.

In other words, a separate variable.

That its possible a high value in one increases the probability of a high value in the other can certainly be true.

Comeliness isnt a separate variable, because within the game engine it doesnt do anything separate. It isnt a game variable at all.

However, D&D doesn't track such interdependencies. For instance, I'd be hard pressed to imagine a Str 18 Con 3 person. But D&D doesn't make it any less likely than any other pairing (Str 18 Int 3 maybe?)

Here I agree. In the 5e engine, the player and the DM must pick the single most pertinent factor in a d20 Test, and ignore all others.

Adding attractiveness as a separate variable in addition to other variables, is something the Cortex Prime game engine manages better.

But we don't have any complex rules for connecting Strength to Constitution. And we certainly don't need any for Comeliness and Charisma

Strength and Constitution have discrete game mechanical functions.

Charisma and Comeliness have overlapping mechanical functions.

If anything, it is Charisma that matters, and Comeliness may or may not enhance it.

In other words, beauty is more like a tool proficiency.


Ultimately, the Comeliness feat works best, along with the Hideousness feat. Spending a feat represents an extraordinary, even magical beauty or fright.


The opposite of Charisma is unnoticeable and ineffectual − no presence.

Charisma includes the intimidating aspects of inspiring fear and repulsion.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

I feel like the attributes are ultimately pointless. A fighter, for example, should be "reasonably" strong in the worst case. We define a base level of capacity to which all fighters adhere at their worst and we then give the fighter things, perhaps something like class feats, which can improve above this baseline.

This means no fighter, for example, is weak, just like no wizard is stupid or no bard is a wallflower.

Skills should depend on class entirely and not on a mixture of class and attributes.

Pathfinder 2E is kinda going in this direction by giving players 100% control over their attributes.