D&D (2024) Change in Charisma Description

[Scribe]

Because many want to keep it out of the description.

Sure. Like yesterday, it's mostly rhetorical.

There is no harm, it just is what it is. It's like ASI, or Alignment. "You can ignore it." "You can add it."

Pointless, so carry on folks.

 

[Aldarc]

Sure. Like yesterday, it's mostly rhetorical.

There is no harm, it just is what it is. It's like ASI, or Alignment. "You can ignore it." "You can add it."

Pointless, so carry on folks.

Then there’s absolutely no imperative to add it to the description. So leave it as is.

 

[Scribe]

Then there’s absolutely no imperative to add it to the description. So leave it as is.

 

[Clint_L]

Sure. Like yesterday, it's mostly rhetorical.

There is no harm, it just is what it is.

No, this one has real world consequences. And I know it's a small thing in the context of the masses of messaging about attractiveness that young folks are bombarded with. But there's no need to add it back to D&D. Just let it be a personal choice.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why ignore the premise of the thread? Why is it seemingly so difficult a concept of wanting something mentioned as part of the description?

It’s not a difficult concept, I just don’t think it adds anything to the game except something for GMs to point to to say “no, your character can’t be attractive because their charisma is low and the book says those things are related,” which I think is a negative.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It’s not a difficult concept, I just don’t think it adds anything to the game except something for GMs to point to to say “no, your character can’t be attractive because their charisma is low and the book says those things are related,” which I think is a negative.

Not to mention 'I personally find X attractive, so your character having X is too attractive for CHA Y, so you can't have it.'

Congratulations, we've turned Charisma into alignment.

 

[Lanefan]

It’s not a difficult concept, I just don’t think it adds anything to the game except something for GMs to point to to say “no, your character can’t be attractive because their charisma is low and the book says those things are related,” which I think is a negative.

It's a negative if done like that, yes.

It's IMO a positive if the DM says something like "Your character can be as attractive as you like but attractiveness is part of what makes up Charisma; and that low Cha score you've got is coming from somewhere. How do you intend to reflect that in play?"

 

[James Gasik]

Personally, I think if the game could handle the complexity (or it was seen as a positive, take your pick), appearance should be a derived characteristic, perhaps based on Charisma and Constitution.

 

[Cadence]

It’s not a difficult concept, I just don’t think it adds anything to the game except something for GMs to point to to say “no, your character can’t be attractive because their charisma is low and the book says those things are related,” which I think is a negative.

Not to mention 'I personally find X attractive, so your character having X is too attractive for CHA Y, so you can't have it.'

Congratulations, we've turned Charisma into alignment.

Are those both trivially fixed by: "Those whom most would view as exceptionally attractive can still have exceptionally low Charisma based on their weak or repellant personality traits, and many not viewed as conventionally attractive can still have very high Charisma and command vast amounts of personal loyalty. Don't be a doofus and act like Charisma doesn't have a lot of facets or that someone needs to be high/low on all of them to have a given score."

Granted that's a lot of words and it might be easier to dodge the issue. But then I wonder why all of the other Chr related abilities key off of the same state even if we nuke appearance.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's a negative if done like that, yes.

It's IMO a positive if the DM says something like "Your character can be as attractive as you like but attractiveness is part of what makes up Charisma; and that low Cha score you've got is coming from somewhere. How do you intend to reflect that in play?"

Nah, I’d say that’s still a negative. It should be entirely up to the player if their character’s appearance has any bearing on their Charisma whatsoever. And your post just evidences why I think it would be a bad thing to add text about appearance to the description of Charisma: some DMs will use it as a tool to to police character descriptions.