Change in Charisma Description

[James Gasik]

I do very much like this approach and have used it with important NPCs. (Usually, I abstract all those considerations as part of the d20 result.) It would work with regard to attractiveness also. In some circumstances with some people, appearance can affect DCs and/or provide advantage/disadvantage.


This is what makes appearance seem to be not part of the definition of Charisma. If I can be charismatic (and either ugly or beautiful) or uncharismatic (and either ugly or beautiful), how exactly is appearance tied to Charisma? And since I can do that now, without a change to the rules, what is gained by citing appearance specifically in the text? (That's rhetorical. I don't mean to open up a review of all the perspectives already.)

Exactly. If you describe your charismatic character as attractive, who is stopping you from doing so, exactly?

 

[Scott Christian]

This is what makes appearance seem to be not part of the definition of Charisma. If I can be charismatic (and either ugly or beautiful) or uncharismatic (and either ugly or beautiful), how exactly is appearance tied to Charisma? And since I can do that now, without a change to the rules, what is gained by citing appearance specifically in the text? (That's rhetorical. I don't mean to open up a review of all the perspectives already.)

I think this is the question. In my opinion, the fact that all the abilities are abstracts, makes it even more important to include various approaches. This gives players more options. I mean, strength is certainly not just "the extent in which you can exert raw physical force." It is also "athletic training" and "bodily power." These things could work in tandem or they could be separate. The super strong female elf that weighs 125 pounds might know how to use her body to punch, throw, or armbar an opponent. No one argues against this because it's in the rules. My proposal was to simply add it to the rules so someone could use it in their definition of charisma.

 

[James Gasik]

Currently, someone -could- choose to be attractive while charismatic. I don't see anyone saying no to this, unless you want to say "the only reason I have high Charisma is because I'm hot". I'm sure a lot of people play as if Charisma = attractiveness already. The rules in the book exist to prove that this isn't the case, and you can choose to play a non-attractive Charismatic character.

Adding beauty to the equation might those people who already believe that it does to simply double down on their belief, hypothetically.

In other words, the current status quo allows you to play a beautiful high-Charisma person or low-Charisma person if you want, and supports your playing of a unattractive high-Charisma character by the letter of the law.

Changing it might cause people to cite attractiveness as a Charisma trait, and remove high appearance, low-Charisma or low appearance high-Charisma characters as options.

This is further muddied by creatures who would have very different standards of attractiveness, and, of course, races like Elves, who we are told are possessed of such unearthly beauty that it transcends standards of attractiveness.

I see what you're saying, Scott, but I don't see the advantage of the change as it might only impose limitations on the kinds of characters one is allowed to play.

And if an individual DM is annoyed by all the hot pretty PC's of varying Charisma in their game, well, that sounds like a Rule Zero conversation to me.

 

[Charlaquin]

And that was my claim. Literally. It should be up to the player to allow their PC's "beauty" to be part of their charisma. As the definition exists now - it does not.

Yes, it absolutely does, because the player can describe their character however they want.

Those that argue about the controlling DM, it could just as easily be argued the other way.
DM: "Charisma is not looks. Therefore, how the NPC reacts to you is solely based on your race. Player one, you're an elf, all the humans fawn and admire you. Player two, you're a dwarf, all the humans think you are ugly." That is how the argument of a not very good DM sounds. It sounds ridiculous because it is.

Except this DM would not be supported by any text in the book, whereas the DM who says “you must be this pretty to have an 18 Charisma” would be, if your proposal was accepted.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't know how many times this has to be said in order for it to be understood. It is in the original post. It would be a part of the definition, because as of right now, it is not. Meaning you could be scary looking but still persuasive. You could be scarred and missing an eye and some teeth, yet still be charismatic. But you could also be beautiful and charismatic. It would be one part of the definition.

But this isn’t a change. You can already be beautiful and charismatic. Adding beauty to the definition of charisma doesn’t add anything to the game. So why insist on doing so?

 

[Jahydin]

@Scott Christian
Not sure why there is so many replies acting like your idea is crazy when it's been the case in several editions of D&D.

OD&D: "Charisma is a combination of appearance, personality, and so forth.
AD&D: "Charisma is the measure of the character's combined physical attractiveness, persuasiveness, and personal magnetism."
3E: "Charisma measures a character's force of personality, persuasiveness , personal magnetism, ability to lead, and physical attractiveness."

Interesting, is that it's not addressed specially in 4E or 5E, but is in 2nd!: "[Charisma] is not a reflection of physical attractiveness."

 

[Jahydin]

Also how a lot of OSR games use it! C&C, OSE, and Hyperboria to name a few.

Hackmaster separates it with an additional stat called "Looks". It modifies the Charisma score, as well as raising starting Honor and Fame. Not sure if that's how the original Comeliness stat worked too?

 

[Scribe]

But this isn’t a change. You can already be beautiful and charismatic. Adding beauty to the definition of charisma doesn’t add anything to the game. So why insist on doing so?

Why ignore the obvious?

The book doesnt state that its linked. The OP wants it as a possible option. Its not complicated and its amusing that people continue 12 pages in, to make it so.

Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence and eloquence, and it can represent a charming and commanding personality.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why ignore the obvious?

I don’t know, why do you ignore the obvious fact that you’re perfectly free to have a pretty character with high charisma, a pretty character with low charisma, an ugly character with high charisma, or an ugly character with low charisma?

The book doesnt state that it’s linked. The OP wants it as a possible option. It’s not complicated and it’s amusing that people continue 12 pages in, to make it so.

But it is a possible option. That’s the thing that neither the OP nor anyone else arguing for their position has yet acknowledged, hence the 12 pages. I agree with you, it isn’t complicated at all. The simple fact is, the thing the OP claims to want as an option is already an option, so there is no need to change anything in the text to make it an option.

 

[Scribe]

I don’t know, why do you ignore the obvious fact that you’re perfectly free to have a pretty character with high charisma, a pretty character with low charisma, an ugly character with high charisma, or an ugly character with low charisma?

Because its literally not the point of the OP's post. Take the quote (and I typed that straight out of the PHB, and simply do this, its all the OP is (I believe) asking for.

Charisma measures your ability to interact effectively with others. It includes such factors as confidence, attractiveness, and eloquence, and it can represent a charming and commanding personality or physical beauty.

 

[Scott Christian]

Adding beauty to the equation might those people who already believe that it does to simply double down on their belief, hypothetically.

I think this is a fair counterpoint. But like I said earlier, the shortsighted DM that rules that is just as likely to rule the opposite: charisma is not beauty; therefore, I can base NPC reactions on whatever I like. The abilities are abstracts, so it muddles things.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yes, it absolutely does, because the player can describe their character however they want.

Correct, they can describe themselves as beautiful. Incorrect, they can attach it to charisma. Show me where in the rules it says they can attach their beauty to charisma?

Except this DM would not be supported by any text in the book, whereas the DM who says “you must be this pretty to have an 18 Charisma” would be, if your proposal was accepted.

Incorrect. It is a part of the definition. No DM has suggested you must be "eloquent" to have a high charisma? No DM suggests you must be "confident." In fact, I bet people would fawn over a PC that was shy and introverted, yet exuded "charm." Examples exist all over the place for high charisma characters to have only one or two of the quoted abilities. So why now, if you added another dimension, would DMs suddenly flock to only focusing on one characteristic. The answer is: they wouldn't.

 

[James Gasik]

I think this is a fair counterpoint. But like I said earlier, the shortsighted DM that rules that is just as likely to rule the opposite: charisma is not beauty; therefore, I can base NPC reactions on whatever I like. The abilities are abstracts, so it muddles things.

At which point it really doesn't matter what the PHB says on the subject.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don’t know, why do you ignore the obvious fact that you’re perfectly free to have a pretty character with high charisma, a pretty character with low charisma, an ugly character with high charisma, or an ugly character with low charisma?

If that is the claim, then why not do it with every ability. Why not do it with strength? For example, ask a player to describe their character: "I am muscle bound, weigh three hundred pounds of ripped lean muscle mass, and have 25" bulging biceps. But I have a 6 strength." Or, "I am lean, move like the wind, double-jointed, and walk with perfect balance and grace. But I have a 6 dexterity."
The reason to add it, is the same reason you have these broad definitions in the first place. To help the player describe their character and have it attach to something concrete in the game - which is what abilities are all about.

 

[James Gasik]

Correct, they can describe themselves as beautiful. Incorrect, they can attach it to charisma. Show me where in the rules it says they can attach their beauty to charisma?

Incorrect. It is a part of the definition. No DM has suggested you must be "eloquent" to have a high charisma? No DM suggests you must be "confident." In fact, I bet people would fawn over a PC that was shy and introverted, yet exuded "charm." Examples exist all over the place for high charisma characters to have only one or two of the quoted abilities. So why now, if you added another dimension, would DMs suddenly flock to only focusing on one characteristic. The answer is: they wouldn't.

I guess the question here is, does it make a difference? I'm not trying to be flippant, this is obviously something you want to be in the game. But as it stands, appearance has no mechanical relevance whatsoever in the game. It's up to the DM to decide whether or not it applies, and in what circumstances.

So if you say "I'm beautiful and have high Charisma", whether the game allows you to state that or not, it doesn't really matter- you have high Charisma. You could even say "I'm beautiful because I have high Charisma", since "inner beauty" is a concept.

So the only thing the game doesn't let you say is "I have high Charisma because I'm beautiful"; ie, that you have average social skills that are balanced out by great beauty. This is important because you'd be saying, in such a case, that your ability to play a lyre or intimidate an orc would be the same as your ability to lie to others or convince them that you and your companions are humble travelers and certainly not the people who assassinated the Duke by virtue of your looks, since the game gives the same bonus to all these circumstances*.

*Certainly, the DM can adjust target numbers or grant advantage/disadvantage on circumstance, but we're simply going off of the actual bonus granted by the ability- no matter what the source, your Charisma attribute grants the same bonus to these activities.

 

[James Gasik]

If that is the claim, then why not do it with every ability. Why not do it with strength. For example, as a player to describe their character: "I am muscle bound, weight three hundred pounds of ripped lean muscle mass, and have 25" bulging biceps. But I have a 6 strength." Or, "I am lean, move like the wind, double-jointed, and walk with perfect balance and grace. But I have a 6 dexterity."
The reason to add it, is the same reason you have these broad definitions in the first place. To help the player describe their character and have it attach to something concrete in the game - which is what abilities are all about.

That's really the problem, isn't it? Ability scores don't work that way in D&D, save for perhaps using the Options books in late 2e. You can't have great ability to lift weights without great ability to smack people around in melee combat (barring racial traits like Powerful Build). You can't be good at dodging blows and picking pockets and not have a bonus to initiative. So you can say "I'm tough but get winded easily" all you want to, but the truth is, you have the same Constitution score which applies all bonuses and penalties equally. Thus any attempt to describe your character differently is not matched by the rules for ability scores- it's game play and story dissonance.

 

[Charlaquin]

Because its literally not the point of the OP's post. Take the quote (and I typed that straight out of the PHB, and simply do this, its all the OP is (I believe) asking for.

I understand that’s what they’re asking for. My response to that is “why? It doesn’t make any practical difference.”

 

[Charlaquin]

If that is the claim, then why not do it with every ability. Why not do it with strength. For example, as a player to describe their character: "I am muscle bound, weight three hundred pounds of ripped lean muscle mass, and have 25" bulging biceps. But I have a 6 strength." Or, "I am lean, move like the wind, double-jointed, and walk with perfect balance and grace. But I have a 6 dexterity."

I see absolutely nothing wrong with a player doing either of those things.

The reason to add it, is the same reason you have these broad definitions in the first place. To help the player describe their character and have it attach to something concrete in the game - which is what abilities are all about.

Well there’s your problem. No, I don’t agree that abilities are about that at all. You certainly can attach them to something concrete in the fiction, but you aren’t required to do so, far from that being their primary role.

 

[Scribe]

I understand that’s what they’re asking for. My response to that is “why? It doesn’t make any practical difference.”

Because just as there are apparently DM's who straight jacket players with Alignment, straight jacket players with ASI, is it such a stretch to imagine there are the same terrible DM's who upon receiving a players description of Charisma being based on their characters looks, look up the PHB description of Charisma, and veto it?

Then again, I guess its just one more reason PF1 is the superior option.

Charisma measures a character’s personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance.

Every day, we stray further from 3.5's light.

 

[Jahydin]

I think most intelligent races pass judgement on trustworthiness by how someone looks, especially on first contact, so "appearance" is a pretty critical contribution to Charisma, but in no way does it need to be "attractive". Healthy, distinctive, imposing, calming, "cool", etc. are all fine in my book.