D&D (2024) Change in Charisma Description

[Lanefan]

You keep bringing this up like folks dumping and pumping is a big problem.

Bad faith play is bad faith play. Why encourage it?

Also, this single change does nothing to stop people from trying it anyways.

Doesn't stop them from trying but does put a written barrier in their path to succeeding.

 

[Irlo]

A PC with a low Charisma score being played as a high Charisma character is just a PC who thinks they’re charismatic. They won’t do well on CHA checks and they’ll be lackluster bards.

 

[Lanefan]

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

Then maybe play a "sub-optimal" warrior? Or a different class?

I don't understand the resistance to characters having built-in drawbacks.

 

[Lanefan]

A PC with a low Charisma score being played as a high Charisma character is just a PC who thinks they’re charismatic. They won’t do well on CHA checks and they’ll be lackluster bards.

Indeed - until the player starts arguing* "But I'm drop-dead gorgeous! That should make it so I don't even need to make a Cha check!" or along similar lines. Ain't got the patience for that.

* - and with no written rule or guideline to contradict this argument, the player has a valid point; a point which IMO should be invalidated before it can ever arise by making appearance an integral part of what comprises a character's Charisma.

 

[Clint_L]

Lanefan, you are at least putting forth an argument, which I take to be something like (correct me if I misrepresent):

1. There might be instances where players might take a low charisma yet also want their character to be very physically attractive.
2. This is a problem because some of these same players might expect to get actual in-game advantages based simply on their character's physical attractiveness, despite a low charisma.

My first question is: what makes charisma different from any of the other abilities in this regard? Indeed, isn't the prime culprit for this sort of behaviour Intelligence, not Charisma? Players are forever taking Intelligence as a dump stat yet playing their character as a super sleuth or whatever.

My second question is: Where is the DM? When it is time for a charisma check, say to try to influence an NPC, physical attractiveness does not affect the roll. So if that player tries to claim an advantage for their role-play decision to have their character be super hot, the correct response is "it doesn't work that way."

To me, this is similar to a player claiming that their character comes from a really wealthy family and therefore receives a weekly stipend of 100 gold, or comes from an ancient line of warriors and thus starts with a legendary weapon that has been passed down. The game just doesn't work that way. You don't get to give yourself in-game advantages just based on your character description.

Unless the DM wants to allow it, which trumps everything else.

 

[payn]

Bad faith play is bad faith play. Why encourage it?

Doesn't stop them from trying but does put a written barrier in their path to succeeding.

No, sorry we dont need to change the rulebook for your corner cases.

 

[Irlo]

* - and with no written rule or guideline to contradict this argument, the player has a valid point;.

I have a hard time seeing that as point with any degree of validity.

 

[Lanefan]

Lanefan, you are at least putting forth an argument, which I take to be something like (correct me if I misrepresent):

1. There might be instances where players might take a low charisma yet also want their character to be very physically attractive.

Which is fine provided those players are willing to play the character as a boor, or anti-social, or offensive, or in some other manner that balances out those good looks and make the poor-overall Cha score make sense. I've seen this done, and done very well.

But when your character's Cha score is 8 and you're playing it as if it's got James Bond-like levels of suave-ity and hotness (and expecting the same results) there's a major disconnect if not outright bad-faith play going on.

2. This is a problem because some of these same players might expect to get actual in-game advantages based simply on their character's physical attractiveness, despite a low charisma.

My first question is: what makes charisma different from any of the other abilities in this regard? Indeed, isn't the prime culprit for this sort of behaviour Intelligence, not Charisma? Players are forever taking Intelligence as a dump stat yet playing their character as a super sleuth or whatever.

Yes, and IMO this is also a problem.

My second question is: Where is the DM? When it is time for a charisma check, say to try to influence an NPC, physical attractiveness does not affect the roll. So if that player tries to claim an advantage for their role-play decision to have their character be super hot, the correct response is "it doesn't work that way."

Indeed. It's nice, however, if the DM has backup from the rules-guidelines when saying that. That backup does not here exist, and a player who wants to root this argument in the reality we live in where good-looking people very often do get more advantages is (unfortunately) on to something.

To me, this is similar to a player claiming that their character comes from a really wealthy family and therefore receives a weekly stipend of 100 gold, or comes from an ancient line of warriors and thus starts with a legendary weapon that has been passed down.

Which, given how 5e backgrounds work, is also a gray-ish area. Fortunately, starting-wealth rules/guidelines serve to nip this specific idea in the bud, but the nobility or family-wealth/influence angle can be played for advantage in many other ways. This is why I have it that one's past profession (which can include nobility) is either something chosen from a very basic (and boring) list or randomly rolled from a more extensive one. Family background is also subject to randomization if one is looking to gain advantage from it - you're free to choose that your family are peasant farmers but not free to choose they're wealthy merchants with contacts in every town up and down the coast; if that's what you want then we'll roll for it, and if the roll comes up as peasant farmers then that what you get.

All this is somewhat intended to reflect the luck of the draw in what sort of lifestyle or social strata one is born into.

The game just doesn't work that way. You don't get to give yourself in-game advantages just based on your character description.

I agree with this. Thing is, in some cases there's rules or guidelines in place to enforce this and in other places the DM is kinda left hanging.

Unless the DM wants to allow it, which trumps everything else.

Agreed.

 

[James Gasik]

What this comes down to, as I alluded to with one of my earlier posts is, if being "pretty" has a benefit, then it needs a cost. Something must be paid in to get the benefits of it. If the DM is ok with that cost being "high Charisma", all well and good.

But if someone is arguing that they should get an advantage for a trait that they didn't pay for, the book shouldn't have to say "no". You can't expect to get something for nothing.

There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

 

[Lanefan]

I have a hard time seeing that as point with any degree of validity.

Remembe that unlike 3e, the general 5e philosophy is that unless a rule says you can't do something, you can; or at least try it. Which here means, absent any rule or even guideline to the contrary, a player arguing that a character's hot appearance should be a benefit in social interactions (especially in initiating said interactions) is on solid ground both rules-wise and simulation-of-reality-wise.

A one or two word addition within the write-up on Charisma and that whole line of argument vanishes without a trace.