D&D (2024) 2024 needs to end 2014's passive aggressive efforts to remove magic items & other elements from d&d

[James Gasik]

So I have a DM who adores Comeliness. He doesn't really use the rules for it, as near as I can tell, it's more a convenient shorthand for letting a player know how attractive a given character is. Of course, he tends to hand out high Comeliness to NPC's like crazy, lol- I have an Elven Enchanter with a Comeliness of 20 and it's surprising how often she encounters NPC's with greater Comeliness, lol.

Charisma =/= Comeliness (though they are easily conflated), but it is a bit odd that you can be as hot (or not) as you want to be, and the game doesn't track this at all. Despite telling us things like:

I mean, ok, so Elves are hot. What does that mean? Nothing (or everything). It's not a trait that Elves pay anything for if it does anything, lol. It has no mechanical bearing. It just is.

And yet, as much as we hate to admit it, we humans are naturally predisposed towards people we see as attractive (at least until they do something to offset that predisposition- and sometimes not even then!).

Yet in D&D, this has no bearing on anything by RAW- it's up to the individual DM to decide if it matters or not (and boy, have I seen ruffled feathers as a result!).

And I can understand why- standards of beauty are hotly debated, and WotC making any definitive statements about such things (outside of Elves) would go over about as well as strictly defining Alignment, lol.

That having been said, it would be nice if attractiveness (or lack thereof) meant something, but I don't see how you can rate physical beauty in any way that won't offend someone.

 

[James Gasik]

The playtest describes toolset proficiencies. If applying both skill and toolset the check gains Proficiency and Advantage.

And if that's what they go with, that's great. Though there's still a few questions I have about it. For example, take Thieves' Tools. There is no "skill" that goes with unlocking doors or bypassing traps.

In fact, many Tools have this problem. And what you can do with a given Tool is still up in the air. If I have, say, Proficiency in Cook's Utensils, what can I cook? What do I roll to cook? What benefits are gained from cooked food?

Unless this is discussed in a book I haven't picked up, as far as I can tell, the answer is "ask your DM", lol.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And if that's what they go with, that's great. Though there's still a few questions I have about it. For example, take Thieves' Tools. There is no "skill" that goes with unlocking doors or bypassing traps.

In fact, many Tools have this problem. And what you can do with a given Tool is still up in the air. If I have, say, Proficiency in Cook's Utensils, what can I cook? What do I roll to cook? What benefits are gained from cooked food?

Unless this is discussed in a book I haven't picked up, as far as I can tell, the answer is "ask your DM", lol.

Xanathars guide has a few rules for tools.

 

[James Gasik]

Xanathars guide has a few rules for tools.

Yeah, I really should get that book at some point. I've read parts of it, but I haven't had a copy to sit down and read. That having been said, I don't excuse a company for putting rules in core and then not really explaining their purpose until years later, lol.

 

[Yaarel]

And if that's what they go with, that's great. Though there's still a few questions I have about it. For example, take Thieves' Tools. There is no "skill" that goes with unlocking doors or bypassing traps.

In fact, many Tools have this problem. And what you can do with a given Tool is still up in the air. If I have, say, Proficiency in Cook's Utensils, what can I cook? What do I roll to cook? What benefits are gained from cooked food?

Unless this is discussed in a book I haven't picked up, as far as I can tell, the answer is "ask your DM", lol.

Picking a lock is both the Slight of Hand skill and the Thief toolset, hence Proficiency with Advantage.

For cooking I use Performance for artistic esthetic appeal.

I get much use from toolset proficiency, by associating it with ANYTHING relating to the toolset, such as astronomy for Cartographer toolset. In general, skills are breadth of knowledge and toolsets are depth of specialization.

 

[James Gasik]

Picking a lock is both the Slight of Hand skill and the Thief toolset, hence Proficiency with Advantage.

For cooking I use Performance for artistic esthetic appeal.

I get much use from toolset proficiency, by associating it with ANYTHING relating to the toolset, such as astronomy for Cartographer toolset. In general, skills are breadth of knowledge and toolsets are depth of specialization.

Is that what the playtest says for Thieves' Tools? I missed that, then.

Man. Prof + Advantage with Expertise is going to trivialize a lot of checks.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Yeah, I really should get that book at some point. I've read parts of it, but I haven't had a copy to sit down and read. That having been said, I don't excuse a company for putting rules in core and then not really explaining their purpose until years later, lol.

Yeah. One point where you saw the time constraints in the end. Also downtime activities.

 

[Yaarel]

Is that what the playtest says for Thieves' Tools? I missed that, then.

Man. Prof + Advantage with Expertise is going to trivialize a lot of checks.

The playtest glossary refers to toolsets generally when in addition to a skill. If I recall correctly, the 2014 rules mention Sleight of hands for picking locks.

There are opportunity costs when choosing to gain high Dex, skill, expertise, and tool, and the application is specific, thus situational, so it seems ok to typically be an autowin.

 

[tetrasodium]

The playtest glossary refers to toolsets generally when in addition to a skill. If I recall correctly, the 2014 rules mention Sleight of hands for picking locks.

There are opportunity costs when choosing to gain high Dex, skill, expertise, and tool, and the application is specific, thus situational, so it seems ok to typically be an autowin.

Tool proficiencies are never an opportunity cost though. It's impossible to make a PC who doesn't have at least one and the choice is usually one where the player chooses one that will make a big difference (or Smith's tools) vrs one that would be difficult to ever matter for anyone in any campaign. There are far too many types of tools, many of which have no reason to exist on a d&d PC's character sheet, and the opportunity cost to gain proficiency seems pegged to use usefulness of the most useless tools.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am already familiar with the 1e Comeliness ability, and what it did was kinda dumb and kinda offensive.

If 5e is to reincarnate the concept of Comeliness, it needs to be a more useful and more plausible stat. Hence a feat, its benefit to Charm effects is worth the feat.

If its a feat it isn't a stat.

Yes, it's that simple.

People that like the idea of playing an attractive person don't just want to choose a generic "attractive". And they aren't looking for supernatural attraction - there's magic for that. We're talking regular "mundane" attractiveness (although I can think of a couple of actors and actresses in specific scenes where I wouldn't be surprised if supernatural forces were involved...)

They want to compare numbers, just like Dexterity or Charisma. They like to be able to compare a 3 to a 6 to an average 9, or put a 17 and not an 18 imagining a birth mark or something.

Anyway. This whole discussion started, not because I'm arguing Attractiveness must be a D&D stat or anything, but because a random remark reminded me adding Appearance is an easy tweak to the system. I'm not advocating for a general addition to 5E. Heck, my remarks here are not specific to any edition (that keeps values between 3-18 or -4 to +4)

As I said, it wouldn't be a number used for anything else except cases where superficial beauty is important, and the player get to pick his number completely freely.

• The scared girl deciding which hero to approach: a negative Appearance modifier lessens the chance she will approach you.
• While playing out a short downtime sequence, the barbarian hero looking to score, and there are three ladies to choose from. The one "winning" an Appearance contest is the one he starts up conversation with, only to realize she's got Charisma 5.
• The party innocently walking past a murder scene, when an old lady suddenly pointing a finger at one of them screeching "murder". Subtract your Appearance from the roll (so the most hideous stands the largest chance of "winning").

But mostly just to be part of the description, a passive value. If your players like to find character portraits through google images or pinterest, it can be useful to ask them to peg a number on the face. If only to avoid the scenario where a player chooses a stunningly beautiful or handsome portrait but would go on maintaining she or he is average, trying to get the best of both worlds. Having the player put down a number avoids such nonsense. Either she's an 18 (or 17 or 19) and we're looking at the same picture, or she's an 11 and I get to ask "how are you imagining the portrait to be modified? Does she have a scar or grimace or rotten pustule somewhere we can't see it, or what?"

But don't just ask me. Others can have their own reasons for liking Comeliness.

I'm just a random poster getting reminded an Appearance score might make sense, even if I don't use it in the old-school way ("girls get a -4 to strength but +4 to appearance, so that's totally fair") which is stupid in more ways than one, thankyouverymuch.