D&D (2024) Change in Charisma Description

[Vaalingrade]

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.

1) Or we could... just not do this.

2) 'Don't be a doofus' should probably be appended to a lot more stuff.

 

[James Gasik]

1) Or we could... just not do this.

2) 'Don't be a doofus' should probably be appended to a lot more stuff.

I believe that's a subset of Wheaton's Law.

 

[Irlo]

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?"

“I intend to try to convince the priest to give us the holy water, to threaten the ogre, to lie to the mayor about sneaking into the graveyard, and to play fiddle for tips on the street corner after dark. I’ll apply my +0 ability modifier to all those CHA checks and you can tell me the results.”

 

[Clint_L]

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."

Charisma does have a lot of facets. I provided a variety of dictionary definitions on a previous post. None of those facets are physical attractiveness. Folks are conflating charisma with sex appeal. There is no need to redefine charisma to bring in a harmful stereotype.

Actually, the 5e definition of charisma tracks very closely to those dictionary definitions, which connect it to leadership: "Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming or commanding personality."

So folks are hoping the change the normal definition of charisma to have a special D&D meaning that also makes it about sexiness (assuming that sexiness is even a quantifiable concept in a fantasy land with thousands of different types of sentient beings).

 

[Cadence]

Charisma does have a lot of facets. I provided a variety of dictionary definitions on a previous post. None of those facets are physical attractiveness. Folks are conflating charisma with sex appeal. There is no need to redefine charisma to bring in a harmful stereotype.

It kind of feels like Charisma even without appearance is problematic if we're looking at it in some lights. [And I'd nuke it altogether in my heartbreaker.]

"Why aren't I more popular at school? Low innate Charisma, duh. You never will be."

Charisma as just "Force of Personality " or imposing ones will on others seems fairly neutral to me.

But the way it is in 5e: "... confidence ... eloquence... charming... entertain others... make an impression..."

Do kids focus that much more on appearance than they do the embarrassing things they say or how they're shy, or don't seem to get noticed?

Or is it easier for them to imagine themselves being more charming than it is to imagine themselves being more attractive?

 

[Vaalingrade]

All abilities are pretty terrible in that regard.

You just naturally have X stat and can't alter that except by leveling or magic.

Do as many pushups as you like, scrawny, you're not getting anywhere until you start doing home invasions.

 

[Cadence]

All abilities are pretty terrible in that regard.

You just naturally have X stat and can't alter that except by leveling or magic.

Do as many pushups as you like, scrawny, you're not getting anywhere until you start doing home invasions.

"If you're scrawny it's because you don't work out hard enough" feels like a not great message? I would love everyone to have healthy habits and get better at physical things than they are with unhealthy habits. On the other hand the vast majority of people will never be an Olympic level athlete no matter how hard they try.

 

[James Gasik]

"If you're scrawny it's because you don't work out hard enough" feels like a not great message? I would love everyone to have healthy habits and get better at physical things than they are with unhealthy habits. On the other hand the vast majority of people will never be an Olympic level athlete no matter how hard they try.

Granted, but it still means that a D&D character is practically near their peak potential at level 1, with no way to grow beyond that sans magic or leveling. You can't just decide to hit the gym or eat better. Which is still better than pre-3e, where magic really was your only recourse (unless you're a Cavalier, for some reason).

Ability scores are an abstraction, to be sure, but the fact that they don't work like real life makes it difficult to compare them to actual traits real world people possess at times. The "charisma/appearance" debate being just one facet of this. D&D doesn't really model the "good at one aspect/bad at another" of ability scores in any real way.

You can say you have massive hotness and a terrible personality, but your Charisma modifier remains the same for all purposes. You can describe your high-Wisdom character as near-sighted and gullible, but possessed of an indomitable resolve....and you still have the same modifier for perception, insight, and wisdom saves.

Previous posts mentioned this; "what is your Charisma in the dark? What is your Charisma to a deaf person?" And the answer is, exactly the same as it always is. Again, as previously brought up, your Sorcerer's magic saves and magic attack are the same whether they have the appearance of a Greek God, or the commanding voice of a mighty leader.

Because the game does not model these differences, any attempt to say "my ability score means I'm this, but not that" ends up having to be ruled on a case-by-case basis, if at all.

As a result, character traits =/= ability scores. One can be informed by the other, but the actual score doesn't change. Now perhaps someone could add a "boons and flaws" system to the game, but the fiddly, small bonuses here and there likely granted by these would add complexity to the system that I don't think many people really want.

 

[Cadence]

Granted, but it still means that a D&D character is practically near their peak potential at level 1, with no way to grow beyond that sans magic or leveling. You can't just decide to hit the gym or eat better.

<snipped lots of things I agree with>

Leveling is the only way PCs get better at anything though and it feels like they do it at a ridiculously fast rate.

I imagine the village smith and the like (who aren't worried about balance and fun game play) get better without leveling by just practicing and pushing themselves at some specific things. Nothing drove me crazier in 3.5/PF than the best <insert craft or trade or art> person in the world automatically being able to kick the snot out of fifth level fighter based on BAB and hp.

 

[James Gasik]

<snipped lots of things I agree with>

Leveling is the only way PCs get better at anything though and it feels like they do it at a ridiculously fast rate.

I imagine the village smith and the like (who aren't worried about balance and fun game play) get better without leveling by just practicing and pushing themselves at some specific things. Nothing drove me crazier in 3.5/PF than the best <insert craft or trade or art> person in the world automatically being able to kick the snot out of fifth level fighter based on BAB and hp.

While there were some amusing things about a 12th level Expert or a 20th level Commoner, yes, they were also incredibly unrealistic. I mean, how does one get to such a high level without tripping over a real character class?

5e isn't any better, where an NPC has their traits "because" without any real rhyme or reason, often with grossly inflated Hit Dice compared to their proficiency bonus. So I have no idea how one becomes a master smith in the 5e world.