D&D 5E (2024) Change in Charisma Description

[Clint_L]

As I have stated a dozen times. The hag, the beholder, etc. That is because the other parts of the definition make it viable. But it does not make it [wrong] for characters to say they have high charisma because they are beautiful.

What makes it logically wrong is that charisma has an objective value in D&D. It is quantifiable. Beauty, as we have pretty clearly established, is subjective. So making beauty the basis of your charisma becomes nonsensical, unless we want to work out the character's charisma relative to each and every encounter. Because I am pretty sure that your flowing blonde locks and voluptuous curves, or whatever, aren't going to impress that intelligent ooze you are trying to persuade, so if that's all you've got going for you, then sorry but your charisma is a "3" for this roll.

Not to mention the weird, weird idea that a warlock is good at magic because he is totally ripped, or something. I think this player has not thought through the implications of their concept of charisma.

And that's setting aside what makes it morally wrong: that telling players that they can have "high charisma because they are beautiful" is a terrible, terrible message. In the real world, kids getting fixated on the message that what matters most is how they look causes horrible psychological damage. Every high school, every year, deals with numerous kids who are doing serious damage to themselves because they get this message all too often and believe it all too much. Does it need to get it's grubby little fingers into their escapist fantasy worlds, even a little bit? Do we really need even the suggestion of it in the rules of the game?

Why?

 

[Charlaquin]

What are the corresponding records for Olympic power lifters?

Guess what? Those record setters have different body sizes.

Men and women DONT have similar muscle mass,

The average is different. There are women with more muscle mass than men and vice versa.

as the sexes are biologically different.

No one has argued otherwise.

 

[Charlaquin]

As I have stated a dozen times. The hag, the beholder, etc. That is because the other parts of the definition make it viable. But it does not make it for characters to say they have high charisma because they are beautiful.

It doesn’t stop them from doing so. At all.

 

[Scott Christian]

Beauty, as we have pretty clearly established, is subjective.

I get where you are coming from. I really do. But we just disagree at the core. To me, leadership is just as subjective as beauty. Any political leader that has 50% of the people for them, and 50% of the people against them is an example. Eloquence is also subjective. One person's eloquent rapper is another person's mush-mouth. Confidence is also subjective. One person's confidence is another person's bravado. All three of these subjective things are not quantifiable. Just like beauty.

 

[Scribe]

Guess what? Those record setters have different body sizes.

Review the weight categories if you like, but I'll just cut to the chase.

Last I looked, pound for the result is as expected.

Regardless, the game is, a game. It's not a reflection of reality nor are the characters real, or us.

People take exception with beauty as an optional part of the attributes definition because of real world baggage or association they bring to the table.

Just as with several other enlightened topics.

 

[ECMO3]

As I have stated a dozen times. The hag, the beholder, etc. That is because the other parts of the definition make it viable. But it does not make it for characters to say they have high charisma because they are beautiful.

Measurements using strength in D&D are numerous and diverse - hence, the definition they use. The lone skill attached to the ability offers these examples in the PHB:

• climbing a sheer or slippery cliff
• jump an unusually long distance
• struggle to swim in treacherous current
• break free of bonds
• push through a tunnel that is too small
• force open a lock or door
• hang on to a wagon
• tip over a statue
• keep a boulder from rolling

Yeah and if you look at every single one of them they are going to influenced by both size and gender, far more so than looks are tied to persuading or deceiving someone.

You posted a video of the fastest woman to free climb El Capitan. She did it in a bit over 21 hours I believe. She is an astounding athlete, at the top of her game and is the fastest woman to ever do this in history. By comparison, the fastest man to climb El Capitan did it in LESS THAN FOUR hours. You are reading that correctly, she took over 5 times as long to get up that mountain. Men were free climbing that peak in 12 hours nearly 20 years ago.

 

[ECMO3]

Strength really is not tied to gender. Being a man does not automatically make a person stronger, nor does being a woman automatically make them weaker. I know from experience, having been both at different points in my life.

Yes it is. It very much correlates to gender and it correlates even when blocked for similar size individuals.

Further in terms of comparisons, being beautiful or ugly would be tied to Charisma far, far less than gender would be tied to strength.

Being a woman does not automatically make one weaker, and being ugly does not automatically (or I would argue even generally) make one more charismatic.

Granted, there are social gender norms and expectations related to strength -

But social norms is what we are talking about here. Wven if it is entirely a social construct it is still true.

The idea that pretty people are more Charismatic would be a social construct too. Yet people on this thread are arguing this social construct should be rolled into the Charisma score. So even if the general strength disparity between men and woman in general is actually a social construct, that would not be an argument against inclusion in an effort to make the game more representative of real life.

What I have said and I what is undeniably true - Gender correlates to strength far better than beauty correlates to Charisma.

Men and women with similar muscle mass in the same muscle groups will perform similarly in tasks involving performance with those muscle groups.

I said size not muscle mass. If you compare men and women of similar size (height and weight) men will typically have a higher muscle mass than women of equivalent size and women will typically have a higher body fat content.

That is typical, it is not always true, but it is true far more than the idea that pretty people are more charismatic.

Testosterone and estrogen just affect body development differently, so adult females are more likely to be smaller than adult males and to have different distribution of muscle and fat in different areas of their body.

Ok, there are lots of problems with this. First off testosterone does not just affect growth, it affects muscle growth.

Second this would be a differentiator in terms of sex. But it would only correlate to gender because sex correlates to gender. However, there are gender variances in strength even when looking at members of the same sex. For example biological men who identify as men will typically be stronger than biological men who identify as woman if of similar size and build. That is due to an entirely social construct, but it is one that is largely true even when looking at individuals of the same biological sex (perhaps for some of the reasons you note).

Males also tend to build muscle mass more easily because testosterone promotes hemoglobin development, which leads to more oxygen flow to the muscles. But point being, you’re confusing correlation with causation. Yes, there is a notable difference in average strength between people of different sexes, but the cause of that difference is not the people’s sex itself; rather, puberty affects physical development differently for people of different sexes, and that in turn affects strength.

The correlation is real though. If we are making the game more real shouldn't we include it if we are going to include beauty as part of Charisma?

 

[ECMO3]

Guess what? Those record setters have different body sizes.

There are weight classes so you can compare similar size individuals. For example looking at the last Olympics:

The womens gold medal winner in the 64kg class, Charron, lifted a combined 236 kgs

The mens gold medal winner in the 61kg weight class, Li lifted a combined 313 kg

This was a man outlifting a slightly larger woman by 77 kgs (155 lbs).

Charron's 236 kg Gold Medal winning effort would be dead last against the lighter men that competed in Olympic weightlifting and would be 49 kgs below the LOWEST weight lifted by a man in the olympics (a man lighter than her).

On the flip side if Li competed as a woman he would have won a gold in every single weight class except the woman's heavyweight division and in the heavyweight division he would have won a silver medal. He would have beat all but one woman in the entire 2020 Olympic field in every single weight class, even when those women were up to 60lbs heavier than he is.

The average is different. There are women with more muscle mass than men and vice versa.

There are. But I think there are far more pretty looking buffoons and ugly con artists.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yeah and if you look at every single one of them they are going to influenced by both size and gender, far more so than looks are tied to persuading or deceiving someone.

You posted a video of the fastest woman to free climb El Capitan. She did it in a bit over 21 hours I believe. She is an astounding athlete, at the top of her game and is the fastest woman to ever do this in history. By comparison, the fastest man to climb El Capitan did it in LESS THAN FOUR hours. You are reading that correctly, she took over 5 times as long to get up that mountain. Men were free climbing that peak in 12 hours nearly 20 years ago.

Sorry ECMO3, you missed the point. I was discussing the athletics skill in a D&D game. You roll and add athletics. Inside athletics, you get to add your strength. If she were scaling a thirty-foot wall, that climber would beat 99% of the men. Why? Because she has part of the strength's ability definition: "athletic training" and "bodily power."
My response to you was that the strength ability in D&D is not tied to gender. They purposefully gave it a broad definition so as to allow for the non-hulk character. Therefore, when you ask:

Should your strength score be based on your size and gender - or to put it more plainly, should we limit how strong small and female characters are allowed to be, so we more accurately reflect practical reality and measurable traits? Would improving the "realism" here be an improvement in the game itself?

The answer is no. Because that would limit a character. My suggestion was to expand a definition. To give players more choices. Hence, charisma should be more than eloquence, leadership, and confidence.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yes it is. It very much correlates to gender and it correlates even when blocked for similar size individuals.

Yes of course it correlates, my argument was that you’re mistaking correlation for causation.

Further in terms of comparisons, being beautiful or ugly would be tied to Charisma far, far less than gender would be tied to strength.

Again, strength is not tied to gender. It is tied to muscle mass, which sex has an impact on, and so in that way you could say it’s indirectly tied to sex.

Being a woman does not automatically make one weaker, and being ugly does not automatically (or I would argue even generally) make one more charismatic.

True.

But social norms is what we are talking about here. Wven if it is entirely a social construct it is still true.

There’s a difference between saying there are social expectations related to strength and gender and saying strength is tied to gender. The former is accurate, the latter is not.

The idea that pretty people are more Charismatic would be a social construct too. Yet people on this thread are arguing this social construct should be rolled into the Charisma score.

I’m not.

So even if the general strength disparity between men and woman in general is actually a social construct, that would not be an argument against inclusion in an effort to make the game more representative of real life.

Ok? So?

What I have said and I what is undeniably true - Gender correlates to strength far better than beauty correlates to Charisma.

I’d stick with using the term “is correlated with” rather than “is tied to.” The latter is making a stronger assertion than it sounds like you may be meaning to make.

I said size not muscle mass. If you compare men and women of similar size (height and weight) men will typically have a higher muscle mass than women of equivalent size and women will typically have a higher body fat content.

What I sad was muscle mass, and more specifically I said mass in specific muscle groups.

Ok, there are lots of problems with this. First off testosterone does not just affect growth, it affects muscle growth.

It affects the growth of all sorts of things, which yes, does include muscles.

Second this would be a differentiator in terms of sex. But it would only correlate to gender because sex correlates to gender.

Correct.

However, there are gender variances in strength even when looking at members of the same sex. For example biological men who identify as men will typically be stronger than biological men who identify as woman if of similar size and build.

That depends on a lot of factors, a significant one of which is that trans women (the more accurate term than “men who identify as women”) will often undergo hormone replacement, and though that has a significantly smaller effect post-puberty, it still does have a measurable one. Regardless, this only establishes a correlation between gender and strength, it does not indicate causation.

The correlation is real though. If we are making the game more real shouldn't we include it if we are going to include beauty as part of Charisma?

I don’t think we should include either.