D&D 5E The Misrepresentation of Charisma

[pdzoch]

Group checks are for when a number of individuals are trying to accomplish something as a group, so it would require a fictional action declaration along those lines. I'm not a math guy, but the rules say "in such a situation, the characters who are skilled at a particular task help cover those who aren't," so the intent appears to be that a group check would not be a penalty. Someone smarter than me will have to say whether the math supports that intent. My experience at the table says that it does since you mitigate the risk of that one guy failing the check and blowing it for everyone else at the table.

I recall an adventure a few years in Dungeon magazine that had a masquerade ball event where the characters had to impersonate a person of high class, gather information discreetly, and and blend in without being discovered as a fake. Charisma based skill checked were heavily employed. DM notes included, if I recall correctly, whether or not a failed charisma skill check would expose fellow adventurers. At first, a failed check resulted in an unsuccessful influence of a guest, but repeated failures made each check harder as the poor reputation/popularity spread. If the player characters were seen associating with one of their failing player characters, their subsequent charisma based skill check became harder also. Likewise, successful checks with higher charisma persons enabled the follow-on checks to be easier.

While some do not like the masquerade ball events in a D&D game, I thought charisma based checks made lots of sense here, and I really liked the "guilty by association" penalty employed in the popularity contest to gain information.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Uh ... wut?

"I am OLAF! I am healthy, like Ox!"

"Oh, Olaf. Your health is so .... intoxicating ...."

"Uh.... you ... uh ... you sense my constitution and you seek the life essence of it. Olaf, uh, Olaf will not avoid you. But Olaf ... Olaf will deny you Olaf's life essence."

(1) Consider evolutionary theory. Beautiful plumes, nice hair, etc., are all designed to showcase health for potential mates. That is why beauty exists, from a Darwinian perspective.
(2) Consider how beauty products try to counterfeit beauty by counterfeiting glowing health. Glossy hair, unblemished skin, long lashes.

Olaf sounds strong, but is he really healthy? If he is, he's probably fairly physically attractive. (D&D elides some nuances of Constitution of course, just as it elides some nuances of Strength, which in reality is not just one uniform metric for all Strength-related tasks.) If his Charisma is low he may manage to make himself unpleasant in other ways.

 

[dmnqwk]

I don't believe a low charisma should represent someone of high attractiveness, because it's just as incorrect as suggesting all high charisma scores must include high attractiveness in them.

Ability scores are representative of the entire spectrum of the ability, boiling down everything into one number. A gymnast might have a strength score of 15, but be incapable of winning an arm-wrestling contest against a builder with a strength score of 12. This doesn't mean the Gymnast is weak, after all they are likely to defeat a sprinter with a strength of 13, because they will have conditioned their arms more etc.
The player has to decide how their score reflects their character (as opposed to deciding the character based on the score) to decide whether or not it applies accurately.

Linking back to the Charisma debate, it's important to realise that, sure, a very attractive person may be insecure and not believe in themselves... however their charisma score still has to include the aspect of beauty being capable of impacting upon others - so if you imagine them as having an effective Charisma of 18 through looks but 6 from self-belief they'd average 12, higher than average.

Obviously you could increase this by splitting charisma up into beauty, sexuality, self-believe, leadership, influence etc and come up with a more robust development, but then that's complicating things too much. The best thing to realise is if you want a low-charisma person to be Helen of Troy then their self-belief would be about a 3! (to clarify, I would put the Charisma of your average mean disney princess around 14, with 18 from physical looks and an 8-10 from self-belief).

 

[iserith]

I recall an adventure a few years in Dungeon magazine that had a masquerade ball event where the characters had to impersonate a person of high class, gather information discreetly, and and blend in without being discovered as a fake. Charisma based skill checked were heavily employed. DM notes included, if I recall correctly, whether or not a failed charisma skill check would expose fellow adventurers. At first, a failed check resulted in an unsuccessful influence of a guest, but repeated failures made each check harder as the poor reputation/popularity spread. If the player characters were seen associating with one of their failing player characters, their subsequent charisma based skill check became harder also. Likewise, successful checks with higher charisma persons enabled the follow-on checks to be easier.

While some do not like the masquerade ball events in a D&D game, I thought charisma based checks made lots of sense here, and I really liked the "guilty by association" penalty employed in the popularity contest to gain information.

Provided there is not a mandatory Charisma check - some actions by the PCs are automatically successful or automatically a failure as determined by the DM - then I think this is a fine way of handling it in D&D 5e. (I'm not sure what edition of the game that adventure is.)

What you're really talking about here though is the fictional and potentially mechanical result of a failed action, not whether or not a group check is a penalty for a party with deficient Charisma across the board.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pdzoch]

Regarding splitting the nuances of Charisma, the flip side of creating a "comeliness" score is the creation of a "presence" score.

I though the old Birthright campaign setting attempted to address the presence of the player characters through their "Regency Points", but I think it reflects more of a reputation and renown aspect than presence.

The old cavalier class had lots of traits related to charisma. But the additional traits seemed a little too close to the appearance aspect than presence. Dashing Figure and Frightening Prowess were charisma based, but suggested the appearance over presence. Oddly, the Aura of Courage trait, something that would suggest a presence aspect of charisma, was a simple rule statement (no fear) and was not base on charisma (which doesn't affect fear anyway).

The Leadership feat in 3.5 came closes to reflecting the presence aspect of Charisma (though it still could have been based on looks). Leaders gathered followers, and the number of followers was initially established by level, but it was modified by the charisma score, which represents their "presence" better. The keeping of the follower was based on a leadership score that was modified by certain acts, none of which had to be directed at the follower, and most reflected a likability, if you will, of the leader. Modifiers were included for "aloofness", "generosity and fairness", etc.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Using constitution as a proxy for physical attractiveness doesn't make a whole lot of sense in game. "You have an ability that determines both how hardy you are / how many sword blows you can take AND ALSO determines how physically attractive you are." Even under the mixed-up standards of D&D, that doesn't make much sense.

(For me, I just let players decide what their character looks like. Always has worked out great ... and comeliness doesn't.)

The first time I encountered the idea of a Health-based Sex Appeal skill in GURPS, it was weird to me. A few minutes' thought persuaded me that it actually makes total sense. If it's still weird to you, fine.

Charisma is an additional, separate thing. In 5E (and *D&D generally), Charisma is something that works on all types of intelligence entities, regardless of whether they find you sexually attractive. It's presence, tact, adroitness, je ne sais quoi... in short, Charisma is charisma.

 

[pdzoch]

I think you are overstating this, and will respectfully disagree. You're looking at correlation (healthier people are generally more attractive), which is true, but also besides the point.

"Fit" people often have a correlation between various attributes- their "constitution," their "strength," their "dexterity." Because they are in good shape! They are often in good shape, because we find that attractive.

On the other hand, there is also a correlation between mental attributes- someone who is "intelligent," also is likely "wise" and can be "cunning/charismatic."

Sure, there are strong but clumsy people. Intelligent people with no charisma. But there is a correlation there.

Using constitution as a proxy for physical attractiveness doesn't make a whole lot of sense in game. "You have an ability that determines both how hardy you are / how many sword blows you can take AND ALSO determines how physically attractive you are." Even under the mixed-up standards of D&D, that doesn't make much sense.

(For me, I just let players decide what their character looks like. Always has worked out great ... and comeliness doesn't.)

I find it really interesting when players account for their charisma score in unusual ways. The "Attractive Geek" - the sorceress who is attractive not because of physical beauty or revealing clothes but because she is smart and kind. The "father figure" - the cleric who is attractive because of the understanding and sage wisdom and gleeful outlook on life in his elderly stage of life. Or the rogue who uses his extremely high dexterity to perform entertaining slights of hands for innocent and amazing fun or as the master of bar tricks.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[pdzoch]

Provided there is not a mandatory Charisma check - some actions by the PCs are automatically successful or automatically a failure as determined by the DM - then I think this is a fine way of handling it in D&D 5e. (I'm not sure what edition of the game that adventure is.)

What you're really talking about here though is the fictional and potentially mechanical result of a failed action, not whether or not a group check is a penalty for a party with deficient Charisma across the board.

I agree. This instance was not so much a group check as much as it was sympathetic effects.

For some reason, the image of a group charisma check conjures up a band of four bards performing. Three of the four bards perform well, but the fourth is not as skilled and causes the band to fail its check.