D&D (2024) Change in Charisma Description

[Mad_Jack]

This apparently was a conscious decision on the game designer's part: they didn't want appearance to be conflated with Charisma any longer, but neither did they want to rate it separately, as Gary did in Unearthed Arcana.

Yeah, pretty much since 3rd Ed. came out, there was a lot of discussion on the different forums, including WotC's own and among several of the designers themselves, about downplaying the importance of physical attractiveness aspect of the character's CHA score.
Personally, before 3rd Ed. became the primary ed. that folks around here played, I encountered several DM's with some seriously "questionable" ideas about Charisma.

 

[Larnievc]

Nope.

You can be beautiful as Apollo* and still be an inherently unlikable twit whose pretty face is just plain punchable.

Beauty is just flavor text.

*I mean Creed, obviously, not that glowy dope with the chariot.

Sounds like a perfect description of Col Al Dillon.

 

[Lanefan]

I would say it's also up to the player, in addition to describing how gorgeous they are, to also explain/roleplay their low charisma negating that "advantage", such as a sullen demeanor, bad habits, an unnerving aura, what have you.

I completely agree.

Thing is, if it's not mentioned somewhere in the rules then IME many players won't think to do this and a significant minority intentionally won't do it in order to gain (perceived or real) in-game advantage.

 

[Lanefan]

I can only answer for myself. Why? Because beauty isn't an obvious part of the definition of charisma. (It's not even a small part of charisma by any definition that I've encountered.) And beauty doesn't greatly affect the associated skills.

Neither of these assertions matches my experience in reality.

Attractiveness is a part of one's charisma*, and beauty/appearance is a part of one's attractiveness.

* - in that being attractive makes people - particularly those you are meeting for the first time - more likely to want to engage with you, thus giving you more opportunity to be persuasive-charming-etc. in conversation. Look no further than all the companies who hire their customer-facing staff based on looks (even if they say they don't) for a common example of this being put into practice.

 

[Lanefan]

Look at Lamefan's comments.

Typo? Or shot?

That's the exact kind of thing I'm concerned about.

Why? If the stats on the sheet aren't there to help define the character and give guidelines as to how it might be played, then why bother having them?

 

[Lanefan]

What's really interesting is that appearance used to be a part of Charisma. For example:
Then, later:

Spoiler: AD&D

View attachment 272950

That 1e definition has always worked just fine for me. The only thing I'd add might be some mention of spiritual strength or resilience, but that's not a big factor.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Typo? Or shot?

Neither. Reference. I genuinely have a huge concern about...

Why? If the stats on the sheet aren't there to help define the character and give guidelines as to how it might be played, then why bother having them?

Because they effect the mechanical capability of the character?

Let's just let people roleplay how they want to roleplay. To me, that the point of the game. If a set of generated numbers controls how a character acts and looks, just set up the AI Player program.

 

[Lanefan]

Neither. Reference. I genuinely have a huge concern about...

Because they effect the mechanical capability of the character?

Let's just let people roleplay how they want to roleplay. To me, that the point of the game. If a set of generated numbers controls how a character acts and looks, just set up the AI Player program.

If you want to play a smart character then put a good stat in Intelligence. If you want to play a persuasive one then put a good stat in Charisma. Same for the other four stats. But if a player intends to play a smart (or charismatic, whatever) character and yet puts a low number in the relevant stat, my first thought is that player's already showing signs of playing in bad faith before the puck has even dropped.

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you want to play a smart character then put a good stat in Intelligence.

I'm not going to play an idiot just because the game requires two to three good stats to be a warrior.

If you want to play a persuasive one then put a good stat in Charisma.

Only maybe they're not naturally charismatic. Maybe it's all learned manipulation and false bravado.

But if a player intends to play a smart (or charismatic, whatever) character and yet puts a low number in the relevant stat, my first thought is that player's already showing signs of playing in bad faith before the puck has even dropped.

I won't play with a DM that is going to think less of me for playing the game as presented and trying to dictate how I play because numbers.

 

[payn]

If you want to play a smart character then put a good stat in Intelligence. If you want to play a persuasive one then put a good stat in Charisma. Same for the other four stats. But if a player intends to play a smart (or charismatic, whatever) character and yet puts a low number in the relevant stat, my first thought is that player's already showing signs of playing in bad faith before the puck has even dropped.

You keep bringing this up like folks dumping and pumping is a big problem. I dont think you'll find many folks to agree with that. Also, this single change does nothing to stop people from trying it anyways.